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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT