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

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