ILNews

Opinions Aug. 9, 2010

August 9, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT