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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT