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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT