7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association Inc., et al. v. Mayflower Transit, LLC
08-1673
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms judgment with respect to a chargeback for the cost of insurance not being a sale of insurance. Rules the period
of limitations for suits under Section 14704(a)(2) is four years, not two. Remands for further proceedings that may be required
by the ruling on the limitations issue.
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
L.T.
v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-JV-62
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that L.T. committed Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.
Devin
Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1003-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felonies domestic battery with a child present, domestic battery
with a prior conviction, and possession of a controlled substance. Affirms sentence imposed following the revocation of Steele’s
probation.
Steven
L. Fortner v. Janet M. Fortner (NFP)
67A05-1001-DR-36
Domestic relation. Affirms orders regarding the contempt petitions and attorney fees. Affirms dissolution of marriage, but
remands for consideration of omitted marital debts. Affirms physical custody order but remands for clarification of legal
custody of G.F. Reverses child support order and remands for clarification.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 20 cases for the week ending Aug. 6.
ILNews
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!