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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT