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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT