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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT