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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT