ILNews

Opinions June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Robert Jones v. C&D Technologies, Inc.
1:10-cv-696
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for C&D Technologies, Inc. granted by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, upholding that Jones was not entitled to benefits from the Family and Medical Leave Act because he did not receive treatment during his absence.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Eldon E. Harmon v. State of Indiana
20A03-1110-CR-529
Criminal. Reverses and remands to Elkhart Superior Court with instructions to reduce a Class A felony conviction of dealing in methamphetamine to a Class B felony and resentence Harmon accordingly. The court found that the state failed to properly satisfy its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the 3-gram weight element of the Class A felony charge.

James Henry Tankard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1110-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms an Allen Superior Court conviction and 17-year sentence on a charge of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Judges found the trial court did not err on instructions regarding “delivery” after Tankard sold cocaine to an undercover officer and was arrested a short time late. Tankard also failed to prove the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the sentence was inappropriate, according to the ruling.

Anthony Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1110-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms Warrick Superior Court convictions of Class B felony confinement, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy and domestic battery. The court held that Hall did not demonstrate fundamental error and that the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply.

Constance L. Jones v. Jean L. Markey d/b/a Markey Bonding d/b/a Markey Bonds d/b/a A-AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. (NFP)
02A05-1110-SC-534
Small claims. Affirms an Allen Superior Court judgment for Markey Bonds, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to order refund of a bail bond, after which the plaintiff’s son was immediately arrested on separate charges.

Steven Kamp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A05-1109-PC-485
Criminal. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief for a Pulaski Superior Court conviction and eight-year sentence on a Class C felony charge of child molestation, holding that Kamp failed to prove his counsel failed to investigate or that an investigation would have produced evidence with a reasonable probability of affecting the trial outcome.

Timothy J. Canfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1112-CR-576
Criminal. Affirms a Dearborn Superior Court ruling, holding the court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Canfield, after he violated in-home detention, to serve two years of his sentence for burglary that previously had been suspended.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, Indiana Parole Board, Keith Butts (NFP)
48A02-1202-PL-163
Civil plenary. Affirms a Madison Circuit Court ruling denying a Pendleton Correctional Facility inmate’s amended complaint, ruling than the plaintiff’s incomplete record on appeal failed to demonstrate prejudice required for a reversible error.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT