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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT