Opinions Dec. 14, 2011

December 14, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Susan Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc.
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Darrell Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners v. Margaret A. Dreyer (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.