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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT