ILNews

Opinions Feb. 16, 2011

February 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeff Whitely, et al. v. Anthony Moravec, et al.
09-3302
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. Plaintiffs sued an Indiana company incorporated in New York to satisfy the penalty claims after the Indiana company entered into bankruptcy and was late paying wages and fringe benefits. Affirms the District Court correctly concluded that New York Bus. Corp. L. Section 630(a) doesn’t make defendants liable for a penalty under Indiana law.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana
49S02-1005-CR-256
Criminal. Reverses Tharp’s conviction of invasion of privacy. The evidence is insufficient that he received adequate notice of the protective order.

Richard Joslyn v. State of Indiana
49S04-1102-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms Joslyn’s convictions of stalking and invasion of privacy. The minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial that he found the protective order at his residence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James M. Thompson, D.O. v. Amy Gerowitz, et al.
49A05-1005-CT-296
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court properly denied Dr. Thompson’s motion for judgment on the evidence on the issue of causation. Thompson waived his argument regarding judgment on the evidence on the issue of informed consent because he raised it for the first time on appeal. Orders a new trial based on the allegations of juror misconduct and bias.

Don J. Herrington Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1008-CR-924
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony intimidation.

Keith Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1007-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

D'Wan Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

SS Enterprise v. La Joya Apartment, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1005-CC-592
Civil collections. Affirms dismissal with prejudice of SS Enterprise’s complaint against La Joya Apartment.

Barbara L. Earle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A01-1005-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Joey Addison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-354
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Emily R. Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1007-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Timothy Allen Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1007-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tony Lee Parish v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1006-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and sentences for that conviction, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT