ILNews

Opinions July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tom George, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
09-3667
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of the plaintiffs’ entire second amendment complaint alleging the NCAA’s ticket-allocation process is an illegal lottery. Because plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that the NCAA conducted a lottery, the bona-fide-business-transaction exception to the statutory definition of gambling is of no effect. The District Court erred in holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars plaintiffs from seeking relief from the court. Remanded for further proceedings. Judge Cudahy dissents.

Tamika Jones v. Res-Care, Inc. and Shane McFall
09-3076
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Res-Care and McFall in Jones’ suit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and various state-law claims. Jones’ Title VII claims, with the exception of her retaliation claim, are barred, and affirms summary judgment with respect to the state claims of defamation and vicarious liability. She failed to establish a prima facie case under the direct method on her retaliation claim.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Nathaniel L. Williams v. State of Indiana
18A02-0911-CR-1092
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, one conviction of Class C felony possession of a controlled substance and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. Reverses and vacates one Class C felony conviction and remands for the trial court to correct its records to reflect the vacation of the conviction. The admission of the confidential informant’s statements did not violate Williams’ right to confront witnesses. Williams didn’t preserve for appellate review his claim that the trial court failed to properly admonish the jury.

Ruth M. Brown v. Alliance Environmental, Inc. v. R. Bruce Wallace (NFP)
49A02-0909-CV-854
Civil. Reverses part of order that awarded Brown compensatory damages resulting from Wallace’s breach of the fiduciary duty that he owed to Brown and in finding Brown held a 12 percent ownership interest in Alliance at the time of the asset sale in 2005. Remands for further proceedings. Affirms order in all other respects.

Aaron Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1194
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Wendy G. Thomas, as personal representative of the estate of William T. Dollard, deceased v. Carol Sparks Drake, et al. (NFP)
06A05-0907-CV-427
Civil. Grants estate’s petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of Drake.  

D.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0908-JV-781
Juvenile. Affirms placement at Kokomo Academy.

Michael Shelton Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1003-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms 40-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Raymond Baird and George M. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-0910-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms denial of Baird and Cox’s motion for review of numerous claims of error relating to the trial court’s bond schedule and conditions of bond.

Estate of Mary L. Riley and Marjorie R. Potts v. James Riley (NFP)
08A02-1001-ES-33
Estate supervised. Affirms decision in favor of James Riley’s son, trust, and grandchildren.

G.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A02-1001-JT-13
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

J.M.O. v. J.C.D; J.M.O. v. D.H.M. (NFP)
07A01-0910-CV-478
Civil. Reverses denial of J.M.O.’s petitions for protective orders against her child’s father and his fiancée. Remands for further proceedings.

Aaron R. Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class C felonies possession of cocaine and a firearm, and carrying a handgun without a license, and three counts of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Joseph Matthews v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1002-CT-110
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for City of Indianapolis in Matthews’ complaint alleging the city negligently failed to place or replace a stop sign at an intersection and that proximately caused his injuries.

M.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-JV-68
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class D felony possession of cocaine if committed by an adult.

Charles Orr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-0912-CR-603
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to burglary as a Class B felony.

K.W. v. L.C. (NFP)
14A01-0911-CV-542
Civil. Affirms denial of K.W.’s petition to terminate guardianship.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT