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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT