ILNews

Opinions Aug. 5, 2011

August 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jayne A. Mathews-Sheets v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
10-3746
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of request for $25,200 in attorney fees after prevailing in a suit for Social Security disability benefits. On remand the plaintiff’s lawyer will have to show that without a cost-of-living increase that would bring the fee award up to $170 per hour, a lawyer capable of competently handling the challenge that his client mounted to the denial of Social Security disability benefits could not be found in the relevant geographical area to handle such a case.

Rik Lineback, Regional Director of the 25th Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NLRB v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc.
11-1371
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Civil. Affirms injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act ordering Irving Ready-Mix Inc. to stop certain unfair labor practices pending a final administrative decision by the National Labor Relations Board. There was no error or abuse of discretion by the District judge.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
City Savings Bank n/k/a LaPorte Savings Bank v. Eby Construction, LLC
64A03-1012-MF-611
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Eby Construction in its complaint that its mechanic’s lien has priority over mortgages held by LaPorte Savings Bank. The trial court erred when it disregarded clear statutory directives based upon equitable and public policy grounds. Remands for further proceedings.

Guardianship of L.W.; S.M. v. M.W. and S.W. (NFP)
33A01-1102-GU-79
Guardianship. Affirms denial of mother S.M.’s petition to terminate M.W. and S.W.’s guardianship over her son.

David and Karen Marks v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (NFP)
45A05-1011-CT-675
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for NIPSCO in the Markses’ negligence action.

Indiana Tax Court 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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT