Opinions July 3, 2014

July 3, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Gene Williams on behalf of Pamela J. Townsend v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Magistrate Judge John E. Martin.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s affirmation of the administrative law judge’s decision that Townsend became totally disabled as of Nov. 1, 2008.

Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions LLC
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. On rehearing en banc, reverses previous ruling that affirmed the dismissal of Suesz’s lawsuit involving venue in Marion County Small Claims Township courts. Overturns decision in Newsom and holds that the smallest judicial district under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is the township, not the county. Judge Sykes concurs; Judges Kanne and Flaum dissent.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

G. Kevin Powell v. Estate of Gary Powell
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling granting the estate and Powell one-half of the real estate in question as tenants in common. Finds when a property is conveyed to individuals by the entirety or entireties, regardless of whether those individuals are husband and wife, a presumption arises that the grantor intended to convey the property with the right of survivorship. This is sufficient to establish the intent to create an estate in joint tenancy with right of survivorship within the meaning of I.C. 32-17-2-1(c)(2).

William H. Royal, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery resulting in bodily injury and Class D felony theft. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and remands with instructions to reduce Royal’s battery conviction to a Class B misdemeanor and impose a new sentence for that offense.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?