7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Torrey
Bauer, David Certo, and Indiana Right to Life, Inc. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al.
09-2963
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms District court’s ruling that the state’s judicial canons are constitutional regarding whether
judges can make public statements regarding controversial issues. The opinion recognizes a split among Circuits throughout
the country on the issue. Also finds that a portion of the challenge involving the pre-2009 conduct code is unripe, rather
than moot as the District court had found.
Franz
Schleicher, et al. v. Gary C. Wendt, et al.
09-2154
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. Finds the District Court did not commit a legal error, or abuse its discretion, in deciding that the fraud-on-the-market
doctrine should not be conscripted to serve some other function in a lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiffs claim the defendants
made false statements about Conseco, which in turn affected their perceived value of the shares.
Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeff
Sagarin and Shirley Jablonski v. City of Bloomington
53A01-0909-CV-454
Civil. Affirms trial court’s ruling in city’s favor regarding Sagarin’s inverse condemnation claim because
he knew about the easement when he purchased the property. Reverses and remands for determination of attorney’s fees
in regards to Jablonski. Affirms trial court’s determination regarding tolling of statute of limitations.
Canteen
Service Company of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Transportation
82A04-0908-CV-466
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Transportation on Canteen’s claim
for damages from an alleged inverse condemnation. Canteen raised two issues for review: whether Canteen’s previous sale
of its property adjacent and contiguous to First Avenue extinguished its right of direct access to First Avenue; and whether
INDOT’s relocation of Canteen’s entrance to First Avenue by 210 feet, and by way of a frontage road, amounted
to a “taking” under Indiana law.
Richard
M. Jackson Sr. d/b/a RMJ Investigations v. Benjamin Parks (NFP)
29A04-1003-SC-193
Civil. Dismisses Jackson’s appeal of the small claims court’s order that he be represented by counsel in his
efforts to enforce an assigned judgment. Finds his appeal is not properly before the Court of Appeals.
Term.
of Parent-Child Relationship of E.K.H.; K.E.N. and C.J.H., Jr. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-0912-JV-603
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
Term.
of Parent-Child Relationship of A.E. and S.W.; S.E. and A.E. v. IDCS (NFP)
17A03-0911-JV-558
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
Kurt
Retrum, M.D., et al. v. Sarah Tinch (NFP)
48A02-1002-PL-97
Civil. Reverses and remands for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Kurt Retrum, et al. because the statute
of limitations had expired.
Donald
Carew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms conviction of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor, following a bench trial.
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
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.