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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT