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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT