Opinions July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Carlene M. Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Multidistrict litigation. Certifies two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court in a suit that was based on the Employee Retirement Income Security act and Kansas law regarding whether FedEx drivers are employees or independent contractors. Craig is the “lead” case in a nationwide class action.

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Steven Ray Hollin
Post conviction. Affirms judgment of the post-conviction court and remands for a new trial. Hollin is entitled to a new trial because of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Andrew McWhorter v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief, where McWhorter challenged his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. McWhorter’s trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the voluntary manslaughter instruction given to the jury. Remands for retrial on reckless homicide.

Robert L. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Anthony K. McCullough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation.

Jocelyn Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor OWI with endangerment and remands for the trial court to vacate the conviction for Class C misdemeanor OWI.

Jeffrey A. Booth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the entirety of Booth’s suspended 4-year sentence.

Alejandro Prado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury and battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman; Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Anthony Ray Ewing v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

In the Matter of Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services: D.L. (Minor Child), and K.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms order finding D.L. a child in need of services.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.A.B.; T.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
Juvenile termination. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Norrene Sullivan v. Kindred Nursing Center (NFP)
Agency appeal. Remands to the Worker’s Compensation Board with instructions that it enter new findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the opinion with regards to Sullivan’s application for adjustment of claim.

Kevin Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.