ILNews

Opinions July 27, 201

July 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Leonard Lapsley, et al. v. Xtek Inc.
11-3313
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms denial of Xtek’s Daubert motion that sought to bar Dr. Gary Hutter from offering his expert opinions, which were essential to Lapsley’s case that a design defect in Xtek’s equipment was the cause of his accident. In this case, the District Court’s stated analysis of the proposed testimony was brief, but it was also directly to the point and was sufficient to trigger deferential review on appeal. The District Court did not misapply Daubert.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following decisions Thursday after IL deadline
Indiana Dept. of Revenue v. Miller Brewing Co.

49S10-1203-TA-136
Tax appeal. Reverses Tax Court ruling that Miller owes no tax on certain sales to Indiana consumers, holding that the Tax Court clearly erred in determining that an example of the application of an administrative rule had the force of law.

Douglas Cottingham v. State of Indiana
06S01-1112-CR-703
Criminal. Finds the statutory amendment to Indiana Code 35-38-2.6-6 regarding good time credit for home detention retroactively does not apply to Cottingham. By using “is placed” in the statute, the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply only to people who are placed on home detention on or after the amendment’s effective date.

Robert Smith v. State of Indiana
49S02-1109-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and placement in a community-corrections program and order Smith serve time in the Department of Correction. Rejects Smith’s argument that his due process right to confrontation in revocation hearings requires confrontation as defined in Crawford. Affirms finding that the state’s Exhibit 1 was substantially trustworthy, so his due process right to confrontation was not violated by its admission.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Cherry v. State of Indiana
55A01-1112-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions and sentences for Class B felony aiding, inducing or causing dealing in heroin and Class D felony unlawful possession of a syringe, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Dale Brenon v. The 1st Advantage Corp, d/b/a Omega Insurance Services
93A02-1202-EX-108
Executive administrative/workers’ compensation. Reverses and remands to the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana dismissal of Brenon’s application for adjustment of claim. The court held that the decision is not sustainable under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Wisconsin laws or Supreme Court precedent, and that the board’s decision gave no effect to the reservation of rights clauses contained in settlement agreements.

Phillip L. White v. State of Indiana
18A05-1201-PC-1
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, holding that White cannot demonstrate that his appellate counsel’s performance was deficient.

Kathleen K. Peterink v. State of Indiana
57A03-1112-CR-586
Criminal. Reverses and remands, finding that the trial court’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class A misdemeanor.

Andre Graham v. State of Indiana
10A01-1108-CR-440
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class A felony possession of cocaine, Class B felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance, and Class D felony possession of a controlled substance, holding that Graham’s constitutional rights were not violated during the traffic stop that resulted in his arrest.

Ronald Davis v. State of Indiana
49A05-1109-CR-459
Criminal. Affirms 245-year aggregate sentence resulting from a guilty plea to four counts of murder, one count of Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm, ruling that the sentence was not inappropriate in light of Davis’s character and the nature of the crime.   

Damon Tyree Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1111-CR-1020
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

The Carl Kaetzel Trust U/T/D December 10, 1977, The Roberta Kaetzel Trust U/T/D December 10, 1977 and Carl Kaetzel, Roberta Kaetzel, et al v. Jon Marc Kaetzel and Beverly Kaetzel (NFP)
74A01-1201-PL-36
Civil plenary/rescission of deed and constructive fraud. Affirms trial court determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the remedy of rescission and that judgment was properly entered for Jon and Beverly Kaetzel.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S.; D.S. v. Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1112-JT-592
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joshua A. Willey-Rumback v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1111-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and revocation of probation.

Chad A. Jeffries v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A04-1110-PC-574
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine.

Craig Watts v. Betty (Watts) Lankford (NFP)
42A01-1111-DR-523
Domestic relations/child support. Affirms trial court order for father to pay child support arrearage and mother’s attorney fees.

Anthony Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A04-1109-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery with a deadly weapon and residential entry.
 
Michael S. Dornbusch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1112-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony burglary and a count of Class D felony attempted residential entry.
 
Tarrance Battle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-946
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine.
 
The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT