ILNews

Opinions July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:

Connie J. Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana
13-1235
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for the state on Orton-Bell’s lawsuit alleging sex discriminating and hostile work environment claims after she was fired for having an affair with the major in charge of custody at the prison where they worked. There is evidence that she was similarly situated to the major, who was allowed to resign, keep his benefits, and return to work at the DOC through a contractor. Affirms judgment for the state on her retaliation claims.


Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Kenyatta Erkins v. State of Indiana
58S01-1309-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Presents first impression issue of whether the state must establish the existence of serious bodily injury for Erkins’ conviction to stand. Because conspiracy is a crime consisting of intent to commit an underlying crime, an agreement between or among conspirators to commit the underlying crime, and an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the agreement, the state needed only to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to support his conviction. Justice Rucker concurs in part and dissents in part to which Chief Justice Dickson joins.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark Rolley v. Melissa Rolley
87A01-1307-DR-330
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of Melissa Rolley’s petition to modify child support from $350 per week to $1,419 per week. Finds the trial court did not err in based on the appeals court’s analysis of the plain language of the child support modification statute, its recognition that the law governing child support agreements differs from that governing other contractual agreements, and its recognition that the ultimate concern is the child’s well-being.

City of Gary v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Guadalupe T. Franco
93A02-1312-EX-1016
Agency appeal. Affirms decision that Franco had been discharged but not for just cause and is entitled to unemployment benefits. The paperwork documenting the chain of custody of a urine sample of Franco was not completed properly, and the city could have produced more information to prove Franco’s sample did arrive at the facility intact.

Steven R. Perry v. State of Indiana
39A01-1312-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms denial of Perry’s motion for credit time for time spent on electronic monitoring as a drug court program participant. A participant in drug court is not awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing under I.C. 35-50-6-3, and the statutes governing electronic monitoring as a condition of probation are inapplicable to a person who voluntarily participates in a drug court program.

James K. Melton, Perdue Foods, LLC f/k/a Perdue Farms Incorporated and FPP Business Services, Inc., et al. v. Chad Stephens, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Stacy S. Stephens and Chad Stephens
14A01-1308-CT-356
Civil tort. Affirms findings of fact and conclusions thereon determining that the substantive laws of the state of Illinois apply to a motor vehicle collision which occurred in that state between residents of Indiana. The place of the tort is significant to the action.

Tender Loving Care Management, Inc., d/b/a TLC Management LLC, et al. v. Randall Sherls, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Birdie Sherls, Deceased
45A05-1311-CT-562
Civil tort. Reverses trial court finding that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because of ambiguity because the extrinsic evidence resolves the ambiguity surrounding the identity of the parties to the agreement. Concludes Birdie Sherls’ son had the authority to enter the agreement and therefore had the authority to waive her right to a jury trial. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert L. Dixon v. State of Indiana
84A01-1307-CR-339
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress certain evidence which was discovered through a pat-down search following a traffic infraction. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Dixon’s motion to suppress evidence located in violation of Dixon’s Fourth Amendment rights. Judge Bradford dissents.

Scott Greenier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1312-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Jacob A. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1312-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms sentence for three counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.T., Minor Child, and K.S., Mother, K.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1312-JT-580
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT