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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT