ILNews

Opinions June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Svetlana Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated
11-3387
U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s finding of summary judgment against Arizanovska on her claims of discrimination, retaliation and other state-law claims against her employer, Wal-Mart. Holds that Wal-Mart’s suggestion that Arizanovska take an unpaid leave of absence was outlined in company policy and was not an adverse, retaliatory response to her filing a discrimination claim.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of V.B., and R.B.; R.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1111-JT-654
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Anthony Tyrone White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1109-CR-871
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in home detention.

Eric D. Smith v. Steve Euler, Melvin Brooks, Marty Sexton, and Jason Jacob (NFP)
46A03-1110-CT-493
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of “veteran pro se litigant” Smith’s motion for relief from judgment. Holds the appeal was in bad faith and remands for determination of appellate attorney fees to which appellees may be entitled.

Carlton P. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1108-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony arson.

Jack Arthur Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1112-CR-689
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Michael J. Maurer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1112-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order denying Maurer’s motion to suppress.

Hassan M. Aljarah v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-CR-541
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted murder.

Donato Luna-Quintero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-931
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

James O. Reichenbaugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1110-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and one count of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT