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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT