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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT