ILNews

Opinions Jan. 12, 2011

January 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Amorita N. Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises Inc.
10-1482
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David Hamilton.
Affirms summary judgment in favor of H&R Block in Thomas’ suit under Indiana’s Wage Payment Statute for paying its end-of-season compensation more than 10 days after it was earned. Concludes that the end-of-season compensation is not a wage under the statute because it was depending on other factors than her efforts and it would be highly difficult for the company to calculate it within 10 days. Declines to send a certified question on the issue to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Beck's Superior Hybrids, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, et al.
29A05-1008-MI-489
Miscellaneous. Reverses order that Beck’s comply with the arbitration panel’s subpoena. Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act preempts Indiana Trial Rule 28(E) and Monsanto’s lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its subpoena doesn’t justify ignoring the plain text of Section 7. Remands with instructions that the court dismiss Monsanto’s petition to assist. Judge Baker dissents.

Brian Reese v. State of Indiana
64A03-1001-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and carrying a handgun without a license, elevated to a Class C felony due to a prior offense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged bad acts, there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction of attempted murder, and he was properly sentenced. The use of “attack” in jury instruction Final Instruction 26 is at most a harmless error in light of the testimony that Reese deliberately fired multiple shots at the police officer.

Alesa Pack v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

89A05-1004-PL-240
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying the correct application of Administrative Orders and Procedures Act to Medicaid determinations regarding recipients and applications. Clarifies that while the AOPA applies to judicial review of Medicaid determinations, separate rules apply to the review of such decisions by an administrative law judge as they pertain to recipients of and applications for Medicaid benefits. Affirms original decision in all respects. Judge Riley voted to deny petition for rehearing without opinion.

Glenn L. Carpenter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony, adjudication as a habitual offender, and sentence imposed.

Lucas T. Scholl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A01-1004-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, endangering a person as a Class A misdemeanor.

Camiell Chest v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Wesley D. Willis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1005-CR-304
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter, Class A felony attempted murder, and two counts of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT