ILNews

Opinions Feb. 5, 2014

February 5, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kendale L. Adams, et al. v City of Indianapolis
12-1874
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a consolidated appeal, affirms entry of summary judgment for the city on the officers’ disparate-treatment claims because the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that using the test results to make promotions was a pretext for discrimination. Affirms dismissal of new claims brought as barred by res judicata because the same eligibility list generated by the testing process was at issue in the first case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.S., C.S., and I.S.: S.R. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1307-JT-354
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Jefferson v. Teton Corporation, Innovative Roofing Solutions, Inc., Gutapfel Roofing, Inc. and Daniel L. Gutapfel
72A04-1302-CT-55
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Teton Corp. and other appellees. Holds that, under the terms of the American Institute of Architects Contract the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County entered into with Teton, Jefferson County’s claims for damages against the appellees are barred. Judge Brown dissents.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

H.H. v. A.A.
03A01-1308-DR-354
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother’s request to relocate with the child to Hawaii. She has shown a good faith and legitimate reason for proposing the relocation, but the trial court did not err when determining it was not in the child’s best interests.
 
Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana
35A02-1305-PC-451
Post conviction. Grants the state’s petition for rehearing, vacates prior opinion and substitutes the prior opinion with this opinion on rehearing. The original decision mistakenly relied on Norris v. State instead of Helton v. State. Helton, like Sweet’s case, involved a petition filed pursuant to Indiana Post Conviction Rule 1(a)(1).

Timothy Ladana Hazelwood v. State of Indiana
49A04-1305-MI-239
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Hazelwood’s petition to rescind the lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. I.C. 9-30-10-14 and 9-30-10-15 are not unconstitutional as applied to him and driving is a privilege not a right. The suspension of his driving privileges is not punitive.

Steven Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Christopher King v. Karen Patrick (NFP)
49A02-1305-PL-461
Civil plenary. Affirms King’s conversion conviction and the calculation of damages.

Alexander Trueblood v. State of Indiana, County of Marion, City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1210-OV-868
Ordinance violation. Affirms speeding infraction.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT