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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT