ILNews

Opinions July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Carlene M. Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.
10-3115
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
69S05-1201-PC-6
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
33A01-1202-PC-72
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)
27A02-1112-CR-1122
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)
49A02-1110-CR-955
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation.

Jocelyn Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1053
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)
84A01-1111-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the entirety of Booth’s suspended 4-year sentence.

Alejandro Prado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1110-CR-1094
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)
45A03-1109-CR-447
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)
82A05-1111-JC-628
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)
49A02-1111-JT-1062
Juvenile termination. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Norrene Sullivan v. Kindred Nursing Center (NFP)
93A02-1202-EX-143
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)
20A03-1112-CR-563
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT