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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT