ILNews

Opinions Aug. 9, 2013

August 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Paul Hester v. Indiana State Department of Health
12-3207
Civil. Affirms District Court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Health. The panel held that there was evidence that Hester was fired for cause, and that Hester failed to produce evidence showing age, race or gender discrimination supporting his claim that his firing violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas W. Oster, II v. State of Indiana
84A05-1208-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands a man’s conviction and aggregate 18-year sentence on charges of Class C felony burglary, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief and an enhancement as a habitual offender. The majority found sufficient evidence to affirm the burglary conviction and habitual offender finding, but ruled the mischief conviction was double jeopardy, ordering the conviction and sentence vacated. The aggregate sentence will be unchanged because the one-year sentence on the mischief charge is served concurrently with a seven-year sentence on the burglary conviction. Judge Patricia Riley would order the burglary conviction vacated, finding in dissent that the state produced insufficient evidence to support the theft intent element of the charge.

Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana
49A04-1210-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms denial of Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge. Finds although nearly 400 days had passed since Spalding’s arrest, his right to a speedy trial had not been violated. Since Spalding was held during most of that time in federal custody, Indiana did not have exclusive control and therefore Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply. The time Spalding spent in foreign jurisdictions does not count in Indiana.  

Tranell Nash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-PC-874
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Nash’s post-conviction relief petition for his conviction for Class A felony attempted robbery.

In the Matter of S.K., A Child in Need of Services; and A.R. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
84A05-1301-JC-7
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s determination that S.K. is a child in need of services.
 
Andrew Wright, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1212-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction for murder.

Nephrology Specialists, P.C., Shahabul Arfeen, M.D., Sanjeev Rastogi, M.D., Maher Ajam, M.D. and Raied Abdullah, M.D. v. Asim Chughtai, M.D., Rafael Fletes, M.D., Kupusamy Umapathy, M.D., et al. (NFP)
45A03-1212-CT-535
Civil tort. Affirms, in this rehearing, its opinion that non-compete provisions continue in certain employment contracts of the departing physicians. Clarifies that the court’s reference to an attorney’s testimony does not indicate the document was inherently unclear.

Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana
49A04-1210-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms denial of Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge. Finds although nearly 400 days had passed since Spalding’s arrest, his right to a speedy trial had not been violated. Since Spalding was held during most of that time in federal custody, Indiana did not have exclusive control and therefore Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply. The time Spalding spent in foreign jurisdictions does not count in Indiana.  

 

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