ILNews

Opinions Aug. 14, 2012

August 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jason Halasa v. ITT Educational Services Inc.
11-3305
Civil. Affirms summary judgment ruling and costs in favor of ITT. Jason Halasa, who directed the company’s Lathrop, Calif., campus for six months in 2009, sued the school on a claim that his rights were violated under the False Claims Act. ITT said Halasa was fired for showing poor management skills and delivering inadequate results.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Andrew Stetler v. State of Indiana
01A04-1201-CR-1
Criminal. Affirms two counts of child molestation and being a habitual offender and resulting sentence of 90 years, concluding that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury trial conviction and that the sentence was not inappropriate.

Harold O. Fulp, Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Ruth E. Fulp Revocable Trust Dated June 29, 2005
41A01-1111-TR-530
Trust. Reverses in part and remands in part, holding that Ruth Fulp, as trust settlor, could properly execute a purchase agreement for the sale of trust property and that Gilliland, as trustee, did not tortiously interfere with the purchase agreement by rescinding the purchase agreement.

Carlin Iltzsch v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1164
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions a trial court’s restitution order after finding evidence supporting the order is based on bare, unsworn assertions.

In Re: Rueth Development Company, An Indiana Limited Partnership
45A03-1110-CP-468
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court granting appellees relief under Trial Rule 60(B) and trial court preliminary injunction on capital distribution and attorney fees, but reverses trial court ruling allowing appellees to pursue their claims as a derivative action. Remanded to the trial court to continue dissolution proceedings.

In the Matter of the Paternity of I.B., R.P. v. M.B., As Next of Friend of I.B. (NFP)
84A01-1109-JP-456
Juvenile paternity. Affirms order establishing R.P.’s paternity of minor child, I.B.

Joshua P. Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-PC-1183
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on convictions of robbery and resisting law enforcement.

Richard D. Boring v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A04-1201-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Brandon Rhonte McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1112-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Stacey Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony robbery and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Sadeeq Danbala v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Billy D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1112-CR-1195
Criminal. Affirms sentence for failure to comply with conditions related to his status as a sex offender.

C. Dennis Wegner & C. Dennis Wegner & Associates, Professional Corporation v. Michael S. Miller, D.O., and Cohen Garelick & Glazier (NFP)
49A02-1112-CT-1159
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part, reversing and vacating trial court’s award of attorney fees for a protective order on Miller’s behalf and affirms trial court denying expenses on other motions on Miller’s behalf.

Stephen R. Harvey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1201-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT