ILNews

Opinions July 9, 2013

July 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was handed down after IL deadline Monday:
Debra Leveski v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. and Appeals of: Motley Rice LLP, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, The Law Offices of Timothy J. Matusheski and Timothy J. Matusheski
12-1369, 12-1967, 12-1979, 12-2008, 12-2891
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Leveski’s lawsuit against ITT on behalf of the United States pursuant to the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. Leveski, a former employee of ITT, alleged ITT knowingly submitted false claims to the Department of Education in order to receive funding from federal student financial assistance programs. Also reverses the sanctions imposed against Leveski’s attorneys. Finds her allegations merit further development and are sufficiently distinct from prior public disclosures to give the federal court jurisdiction over her lawsuit. Remands for further proceedings.

Tuesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Roger L. Peele v. Clifford Burch, individually and as Portage Police Department Chief, et al.
12-3562
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the city of Portgage and Portage Police Department chief and assistant chief on Peele’s lawsuit that he was transferred out of the detective bureau for talking to a local reporter about the loss of the election by the candidate he supported for mayor. A deposition by a police officer who held the station duty officer position before Peele and the suspicious timing of Peele’s transfer are enough to avoid summary judgment. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Wayne L. Patton v. State of Indiana
17A05-1210-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms condition of Patton’s probation that prohibits him from accessing websites and computer programs in which children are likely to participate. The condition is reasonable and is neither overbroad or excessively vague because it relates directly to preventing Patton from communicating with children on the Internet.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: R.J. and T.W. (minor children), C.J. (Mother) and K.J. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
15A01-1207-JT-427
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Larry A. Rowe, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1212-CR-1016
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Brandon T. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A04-1211-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Steven Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1208-CR-685
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for credit time for the completion of various programs while Gates was in the Marion County jail awaiting trial.

Raymond E. Schakel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1301-CR-42
Criminal. Reverses conviction for Class A felony child molesting following guilty plea. Remands for further proceedings.

Phong Tien v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Turf Pro Plus, Inc. v. Indianapolis Department of Public Works, The City-County Council, and The Hon. Greg Ballard (NFP)
49A02-1301-CC-66
Civil collection. Dismisses Turf Pro’s appeal of the grant of the city’s motion to dismiss the company’s complaint regarding contracts to mow grass in city parks.

William Zollinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1211-PC-450
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of R.E. and D.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
20A05-1209-JT-469
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

Eugene Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-797
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Hill serve a 180-day sentence in the Marion County jail.

John S. Dillman, Jr. v. Michelle Dillman (NFP)
45A03-1209-DR-388
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying father’s petition to modify custody.

Matthew A. Baugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1210-PC-545
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT