ILNews

Opinions August 23, 2013

August 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions, August 23, 2013

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Larry Butler et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
11-8029, 12-8030
Civil. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reinstates class-action certification for two claims regarding front-loading Kenmore washing machines sold by Sears: that design defects created odor-producing mold and cause the machine to stop at inopportune times. Applying the SCOTUS holding in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), the court held that a single common issue of liability ran through class action claims: whether the washers were defective.

Hubert E. Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trailer Transit, Inc.
13-8015
Civil. Affirms district court ruling that a motion to remand the case to state court was properly denied, holding that the grant of removal to the federal court was timely.

Indiana Supreme Court
Ronald G. Becker v. State of Indiana
45S03-1301-CR-9
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s order granting Indiana Department of Correction’s motion to correct error and require Becker to register every 90 days as a sexually violent predator. Becker had successfully appealed his classification as an SVP and entered into an Agreed Order with the prosecutor that he had fulfilled his obligation and was no longer required to register. The Supreme Court concludes res judicata bars DOC from intervening because its interests already are represented by the prosecutor.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adam Morris v. State of Indiana

14A05-1209-CR-495
Criminal. Upon rehearing, affirms the award of restitution against Morris in the amount of $14,972.45. Rules his plea agreement is entirely open which gave the trial court discretion to award restitution. Judge John Baker dissents, arguing restitution should not be awarded because the trial court’s order regarding payment pertained to the charge that was dismissed under the plea agreement.
 
Jordan Parker, a minor, individually, and by James Parker and Cheryl Parker, as Natural parents and next friends of Jordan Parker v. Indiana State Fair Board, an agency of The State of Indiana
49A02-1212-PL-1003
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands a trial court’s denial of a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Indiana State Fair Board stripping a 4-H sheep grand champion of the title and prizes due to a positive drug test after the animal was slaughtered. The Parkers waived their argument that the State Fair/4-H handbook general terms and conditions were void and that any errors in comments made by a doctor during the board’s deliberations were harmless, the panel ruled. However, summary judgment in favor of the board was improperly granted because the Parkers were denied an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing is ordered regarding penalties imposed.

No opinions from the Indiana Tax Court were submitted by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT