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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT