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
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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT