ILNews

Opinions Aug. 26, 2011

August 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Victoria Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC.
10-2201
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Serednyj’s former employer, Beverly Healthcare, holding the employer did not violate the law in firing her, because she was unable to perform all the functions of her job due to pregnancy complications.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeremy A. Lane v. State of Indiana
48A02-1010-CR-1156
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony attempted theft, holding that due to Lane’s record, the sentence is appropriate, and that his counsel did not render ineffective assistance.

Zarumin Coleman v. State of Indiana

49A02-1101-CR-12
Criminal. Reverses 60-year sentence for one count Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, holding that conspiracy to commit a “crime of violence” is not a crime of violence, and therefore, the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Remands to trial court to reduce sentence to 55 years.

Timothy-Patrick Treacy v. State of Indiana
49A02-1010-CR-1254
Criminal. Dismisses appeal from attorneys, holding that the appeal does not involve the named appellant, but rather is an attempt to collect attorney fees from the Marion County Public Defender Agency. Judge Melissa May dissented, stating that despite counsel’s motivation for filing the appeal, Treacy was denied his constitutional right to trial counsel at public expense.

Eric D. Smith v. D. Patton, Scott Fitch, Larry Bynum, Correctional Medical Services (NFP)
33A01-1012-PL-681
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants.

Sean W. Clover v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A04-1010-CR-675
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

In Re: The Marriage of Jimmy Hovey v. Jennifer Hovey (NFP)

45A05-1102-DR-123
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination of amount of father’s arrearage and award of attorney fees to mother.

Kevin Godfrey v. State of Indiana (NFP)

42A04-1101-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Charles F. Newby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1012-CR-814
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence for Class A misdemeanors driving while suspended and resisting law enforcement.

Mark Singer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1102-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts Class C felony theft.  

Brandon D. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1103-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Joel Rowley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

In Re The Marriage of: R.B. v. M.B. (NFP)
18A02-1010-DR-1163
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s division of marital property and custody determination.

S.G. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and T.C. (NFP)

93A02-1011-EX-1241
Civil. Affirms determination by administrative law judge, which was affirmed by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s review board, that S.G. was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Aaron Isby v. Edwin Buss, Indiana Parole Board, et al. (NFP)
77A01-1104-PL-181
Civil plenary. Holds that while Isby’s case was properly transferred to Sullivan County, it was improperly dismissed. Remands with instructions to the court to consider Isby’s motion for change of judge.  

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT