ILNews

Opinions Feb. 24, 2014

February 24, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
University of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et. al. and Jane Doe 1, et al.
13-3853
Civil. Affirms on interlocutory appeal denial of an injunction blocking enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, holding that the requirement that the university submit a form opting out of paying for contraception services for women did not trigger provision of those services which insurers are required to provide under the law. Circuit Judge Joel Flaum dissented, holding that Notre Dame has shown a likelihood of success on the merits and he would therefore reverse the order denying the injunction.

Nora Chaib v. State of Indiana
13-1680
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2014/february/rssExec.pl-4.pdf
Civil. Affirms summary judgment granted to the Indiana Department of Correction on all of Chaib’s claims regarding discrimination and retaliation. Finds Chaib failed to provide evidence that her employer treated her differently because of her gender and national origin.

Patrick Hayden and Melissa Hayden, on behalf of their minor child, A.H. v. Greensbrug Community School Corp., et al.
13-1757
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of the school district on due process claim. Reverses judgment in favor of the school on the equal protection and Title IX claims. Finds the Haydens have established that the hair-length policy as applied only to boys playing basketball discriminates based on sex. Remands to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, to determine appropriate relief on these claims.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David J. Harman v. State of Indiana
45A05-1304-CR-153
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and 45-year sentence, holding that evidence of the victim’s prior criminal history was properly excluded and that the sentence was not inappropriate due to the brutality of the offense and in light of Harman’s character.

In Re: Paternity of J.M.; C.M. v. T.S.
18A02-1308-JP-684
Juvenile paternity. Reverses denial of an incarcerated father’s motion for a hearing to determine the amount of his child support arrearage and the propriety of the garnishment of his inmate trust fund account. Remands with instructions for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the arrearage, the father’s ability to pay, a reasonable payment schedule, and the entry of an income withholding order.

Shawn Blount v. State of Indiana
49A02-1304-CR-365
Criminal. Reverses and remands Blount’s conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence when it allowed a detective to tell the jury that a mother and her son gave him the nickname of the shooter that was later identified as Blount.

Richard Wilkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1306-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate conviction for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug. Concludes Wilkins’ convictions violated double jeopardy.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.R. (minor child); S.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1308-JT-400
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of S.R.’s (mother) parental rights to her child, K.R.
 
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.M. & J.H. (Minor Children) and C.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
45A04-1309-JT-456
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of C.M.’s (mother) parental rights to minor children C.M. and J.H.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by 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