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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT