ILNews

Opinions Jan. 21, 2011

January 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.
 

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