Opinions July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:
Julia Hutt v. AbbVie Products LLC
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of AbbVie Products, formerly known as Solvay Pharmaceuticals, on Hutt’s age discrimination and retaliation claims and her state law claim asserting a violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The District Court correctly concluded that Hutt’s age discrimination claim fails under the direct method and she could not prove the company retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the EEOC. Finds Hutt failed to develop her bad-faith argument with regard to her claim alleging violation of the Wage Payment Statute.

Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Jasmine Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony theft conviction.

William Robert Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

John R. Edwards v. Maryann Edwards (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of John Edwards’ petition to emancipate and modification of custody and support.

Billie Jo Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for  Class B felony aggravated battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.R. (Minor Child), and, C.C. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.  

Jubilee Investment Corp. v. BJ Thompson Associates, Inc. and BJ Thompson (NFP)
Civil collection.  Affirms summary judgment in favor of BJ Thompson on the issue of whether he, as president and sole shareholder of BJ Thompson Associates Inc. executed a personal guaranty of a commercial lease.

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. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.