7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Seabrook,
Dieckmann & Naville, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Monica Hilbert
93A02-1202-EX-100
Agency action. Reverses board’s conclusion that Hilbert’s employment was not terminated for just cause. Based
on the evidence and testimony, Seabrook Dieckmann & Naville showed that Hilbert breached a duty in connection with work
which was reasonably owed to her employer and her conduct was of such a nature that a reasonable employee would understand
that the conduct was a violation of a duty owed to the funeral home. Remands for further proceedings.
Patricia
J. Barrow and Charlie Hanka v. City of Jeffersonville, Jeffersonville Planning and Zoning Dept., Jeffersonville Board of Zoning
Appeal, Jeffersonville Building Comm., et al.
10A05-1112-PL-647
Civil plenary. Affirms conclusion that Chester Hicks, city director of planning and zoning, and Russell Segraves, city building
commissioner, were public officers and the statute of limitations in I.C. 34-11-2-6 was applicable to this case. Concludes
that the director and building commissioner were public officers because both held positions for which duties are prescribed
by law to serve a public purpose. Reverses summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiffs’ complaint was
timely filed.
Wabash
County Young Men's Christian Association, Inc. f/k/a Wabash Community Service v. Taylor M. Thompson, a minor, by next
friends, Brian Thompson and Charlene Thompson
85A05-1203-CT-138
Civil tort. Reverses order denying the YMCA’s motion to dismiss a negligence complaint brought by a 17-year-old injured
while playing softball from sliding into base. The release form signed by Taylor Thompson’s mother was valid, and the
teen’s injury was derived from a risk inherent in the nature of playing softball.
Term.
of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.F. (Minor Child), and M.G. & S.F. (Father & Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
26A04-1202-JT-90
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. The trial court committed fundamental error in terminating the parents’
rights when the child was removed under a dispositional decree for less than six months.
Alice
Lee v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1090
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attendance at an animal fighting contest as a Class A misdemeanor. Indiana Code 34-46-3-10
is not unconstitutionally vague.
Roderick
Vandrell Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1201-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of felony murder.
Carroll
S. Channell, Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Carroll S. Channell dated August 21, 2000, et al. v. Tim Moffatt and
Bill Moffatt (NFP)
59A04-1112-PL-664
Civil plenary. Affirms pre-trial order resolving all pending motions in an action originally brought to quiet title to real
estate located in Orange County. Remands for further proceedings.
Jeremy
Lamar Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-79
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony burglary.
Term.
of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S., minor child, and D.S., mother, and W.S., father; D.S. and W.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child
Services (NFP)
53A05-1112-JT-673
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
B.C.
v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1202-JV-68
Juvenile. Vacates order B.C. register as a sex offender as the order was premature and remands with instructions.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.