ILNews

Opinions April 26, 2013

April 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Big Ridge Inc., Jerad Bickett, et al. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, et al.
12-2316, 12-2460
Review of order. Denies petitions for review filed by mine operators and a group of mine employees regarding regulations that allow for Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors to review employee medical and personnel records during inspections to verify the mines have not been under-reporting miners’ injuries and illnesses. Agrees with the commission that MSHA acted within its statutory and constitutional authority both in demanding information that would permit MSHA to verify the accuracy of mine operators’ injury reports and in issuing citations and monetary penalties when mine operators refused to comply.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Platinum Construction Group, LLC v. Christopher Collings
93A02-1210-EX-882
Agency action. Affirms award of benefits to former Platinum construction supervisor Collings for injuries he suffered during an accident on the job. The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s findings awarding Collings sums for temporary total disability and sums for permanent partial impairment support its judgment.

Shari (Ellis) Lovold v. Clifford Scott Ellis
54A01-1209-DR-410
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that C.E. repudiated his relationship with his father Clifford Ellis, but reverses the child support calculation because the court erred in requiring Ellis to pay child support for the time C.E. was living on a college campus. Remands with instructions.

Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
49A02-1210-MI-826
Miscellaneous. Reverses dismissal of Lebamoff Enterprises’ petition for judicial review. The company failed to timely file the agency record, but the original submission contained sufficient material to enable judicial review. Remands with instructions. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.R. (Minor Child) and T.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
35A05-1208-JT-435
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights and remands with instructions to enter specific factual findings and to provide an explanation as to how the findings support the judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT