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

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