The following opinion was posted Monday after IL deadline.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Medical
Assurance Co., Inc. v. Amy Hellman, et al.
08-2887
U. S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Allen Sharp.
Civil. Medical Assurance appealed the District Court’s stay on the company’s declaratory judgment action. The
company asked the court to declare that Dr. Mark Weinberger breached his contract obligations when he disappeared while on
vacation and hasn’t been participating in his defense in more than 350 medical malpractice claims. As an insurer, it
must show that the breach resulted in actual prejudice by showing that the outcome of the underlying case would have been
altered by the insured’s cooperation. The District Court had noted it would be impossible for Medical Assurance to show
actual prejudice without interfering with the state court processes, but the Circuit Court disagrees. The Circuit Court wrote
that summary judgment is a good tool to examine not only whether Medical Assurance can succeed as a matter of law but also
whether this case is a suitable candidate for declaratory relief by allowing the company to go forward with its challenge
to its duty to defend. Vacates and remands the case for further proceedings.
Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United
States of America v. Vertran Wheaton
09-3171
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of 36-month sentence for violating terms of supervised release. Wheaton admitted having violated
the terms, and his counsel filed an Anders brief. The court notes Wheaton didn’t ask to withdraw his admissions but
objects only to the sentence and not the revocation of supervised released based on his admissions. Using United States
v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002), the court holds the challenge cannot stand. Grants counsel’s motion
to withdraw.
Indiana Supreme Court
In
the Matter of Mandate of Funds; St. Joseph County Commissioners and St. Joseph County Council v. The Hon. Peter J. Nemeth
and the St. Joseph Probate Court
71S00-0912-MF-569
Civil. On automatic review pursuant to Trial Rule 60.5(B) and Appellate Rule 61, this is the first case utilizing the 2009
amended procedures of T.R. 60.5. Reverses the dismissal of Mandate 1 directing that the commissioners “shall not sell,
assign, or otherwise transfer any interest in the land without the court’s consent” and remands it for trial.
Affirms in part and reverses in part Mandate 2 about renovations to the Juvenile Justice Center and Mandate 3 regarding raises
in salaries. Affirms the award of attorney fees and remands for a determination and award of the court’s appellate attorney
fees. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Rucker concur with author Justice Sullivan. Justice Dickson concurs in part and dissents
in part with a separate opinion, with which Justice Boehm concurs.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Adam
Starr v. State of Indiana
49A04-0912-CR-677
Criminal. Reverses conviction of refusal to identify self, a Class C misdemeanor because Starr did not fall within the purview
of the refusal to identify statute.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions and IL deadline.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.