ILNews

Opinions Dec. 14, 2011

December 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Susan Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc.
11-1221
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Summit Seating on Kellar’s lawsuit that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work performed before the official start of her work shift. Concludes that Summit did not know or have reason to know that Kellar was working before her shift.

United States of America v. Andre Moody
10-3924
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine and 292-month sentence. The challenged evidence was derived from an independent source and in light of the fact that law enforcement did nothing with this evidence for more than two years before it was rediscovered by an independent source, any unconstitutional taint was removed and the evidence was properly admitted.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.G., E.G., and C.D.; and B.G. (Mother), H.H.G. (Father), and C.L.D. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
30A01-1103-JT-267
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights for mother and the children’s two fathers. Concludes that DCS failed to show that termination is in the children’s best interest as the parents appear willing to continue to cooperate with DCS and work toward reunification, and because there is no indication that allowing the parents more time to do so will harm the children.

The Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Harry and Eva Elburg (NFP)
39A01-1012-CC-664
Civil collection. Reverses denial of the board of zoning appeals’ motion to dismiss the Elburgs’ petition for writ of certiorari as it related to a conditional use and affirms the denial of the BZA’s motion to dismiss the Elburgs’ petition for writ of certiorari with regard to the variance issue. Remands for further proceedings.

Lawrence Ray Holley II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1005-PC-652
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to expand upon the mailbox rule and affirms original decision to affirm the denial of Holley’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Douglas Norman and Theresa Norman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1102-CR-74
Criminal. Affirms the Normans’ convictions of Class D felony money laundering as well as Doug’s convictions of Class C felony corrupt business influence, Class C felony forgery and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

Quintin D. Holmes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1104-CR-161
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Alvareze Isom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1106-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Darrell Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1105-PC-232
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners v. Margaret A. Dreyer (NFP)
10A01-1012-PL-659
Civil plenary. Affirms order by Clark Circuit Court that the aviation board pay Dreyer $865,000 in compensation for land that was taken by the board through the use of eminent domain.

Maria J. Villarreal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1104-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT