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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT