ILNews

Opinions Feb. 1, 2012

February 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:

Amber Parker, et. al., v. Franklin Community School Corporation, et. al.
10-3595
Civil. Reverses U.S. District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding Parker has shown a genuine question of fact about whether the disproportionate scheduling of boys’ basketball games on weekends and girls’ basketball games on weeknights is discriminatory under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681(a). Further reverses on the court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Today’s opinions:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court, and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc. v. Strand Associates, Inc., as successor In interest to Sieco, Inc. (NFP)
36A04-1103-CT-79
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Strand Associates.

Cleverson J.R. Punturi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1106-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery, but remands with instructions to the court to revise sentence to three years, with half of that served on probation and half served on work release, finding the sentence was inappropriate because the victim suffered no physical harm.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT