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. 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