7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Maria
Tara Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
10-2214
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on Sutherland’s hostile work environment and negligent infliction
of emotional distress claims. She did not present evidence that would allow a jury to conclude Wal-Mart is liable for the
assault committed against her by Aguas.
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Hollis, et al. v. Defender Security Company
49A02-1004-PL-464
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Hollis’ wage claims brought under the Wage Payment Statute. An employee’s
status at the time he or she files the claim is the relevant inquiry in determining whether to proceed under the Wage Payment
Statute or the Wage Claims Statute. Robert was involuntarily separated from Defender Security Co. when he filed his claims,
so they fell under the Wage Claims statute. Because he didn’t allege any Wage Claims Statute violations and submit his
claim to the Department of Labor, the trial court properly dismissed his claims.
Darren Matlock v. State of Indiana
49A02-1006-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Where the possibility exists that
a defendant accused of OWI may at some point in the future regain competency and be released back into society, and when that
release also may include the defendant driving, the state may pursue an OWI conviction even if the defendant’s incompetency
caused he or she to be detained for a period in excess of the maximum possible sentence for OWI.
Benjamin H. Steinberg v. State of Indiana
53A01-1001-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 65-year sentence for murder. There was no reversible error in any of the issues Steinberg
raised on appeal and his sentence is appropriate.
John P. Osburn v. State of Indiana
38A04-1004-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies theft and insurance fraud and vacates the Class D felony obstruction of
justice conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds. There is enough evidence to support his convictions, but a review
of the record indicates that the jury likely used the same facts to convict Osburn of both theft and obstruction of justice.
Zachary K. Gootee v. State of Indiana
67A05-1006-CR-74
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed upon re-sentencing for convictions of four counts of Class C felony forgery, three counts
of Class D felony fraud, one count of Class D felony theft, and the determination that Gootee is a habitual offender. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion upon re-sentencing by imposing the same aggregate sentence of 24 years and by imposing
consecutive sentences.
Brian Bronaugh v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony attempted robbery, Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent
felon, Class D residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it denied Bronaugh’s trial counsel’s motion to withdraw and Bronaugh was not denied due process
when he was forced to attend the first day of trial wearing his jail clothes.
Jodi McGookin, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al.
71A04-1001-CT-101
Civil tort. Affirms denial of motion to correct error, following the trial court ruling in favor of Guidant on the McGookins’
state law complaint following the death of Jodi McGookin’s newborn daughter. The trial court properly found the claims
pre-empted by federal law. The label on the pacemaker had been pre-approved by the FDA and Guidant wasn’t required to
include additional warnings.
Christopher K. Washington v. State of Indiana
45A03-1004-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony battery. Washington’s mental illness bears
little weight on the analysis of his character and he failed to carry his burden of proving his sentence has met the inappropriateness
standard of review.
Brandy Lozier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1007-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of four years of Lozier’s previously suspended sentence.
S.R. v. T.R. (NFP)
79A02-1005-DR-617
Domestic relation. Affirms decision to allow father T.R. to have unsupervised parenting time with the parties’ minor
children. Holds that trial court’s admonishment concerning any future contempt findings does not violate mother S.R.’s
due process rights.
David D. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1004-CR-242
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony burglary and determination that Williams is a habitual offender.
Mark W. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1005-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting but reverses sentence imposed on that count. Revises it to
40 years, to be served concurrently with the eight-year sentence previously imposed on Class C felony touching or fondling
a 10-year-old child with the intent to arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires or that of the child.
Adoption of T.D.V. and M.B.V.; B.R. v. J.V. (NFP)
15A05-1006-AD-364
Adoption. Affirms denial of stepfather B.R.’s petition to adopt T.D.V. and M.B.V.
Josh R. Crager v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1006-CR-283
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public
park.
Bonnie Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-713
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Paternity of B.W.; D.W. v. T.P. (NFP)
71A05-1006-JP-455
Juvenile. Affirms modification of legal and physical custody of B.W. in favor of mother T.P.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.