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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT