Opinions Feb. 4, 2013

February 4, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Connie S. Landers v. Wabash Center, Inc.
Civil tort. Affirms judgment for Wabash Center Inc. in its lawsuit against Landers for the return of money her ex-husband stole from his employer Wabash and gave to her during and after their marriage. The court ordered she pay more than $1.037 million and granted Wabash an equitable lien on her home. Wabash’s lawsuit is not barred by the statute of limitations and the ruling is supported by sufficient evidence.

Mohamed Sesay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanors public intoxication and disorderly conduct.

Brandon Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Eligah Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of battery and one count of resisting law enforcement, all as Class A misdemeanors.

Chris Corey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Blaine Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana decisions by IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court didn’t post any opinions by IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?