Opinions June 3, 2011

June 3, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s summary judgment for the defendants and dismissal of discrimination lawsuit, stating the plaintiff failed to prove that her treatment at work was in any way affected by her race, and that the plaintiff did not prove that Ball State University was negligent in taking steps to remediate reported harassment.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
J.H. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate restitution order. Holds that the juvenile court failed to recognize the state must prove validity of damage estimates and that the court did not adequately investigate J.H.’s ability to pay.

Nicholas Mills v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

John Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended within ten years of a similar prior infraction and remands with instructions to amend by vacating Class A misdemeanor conviction and entering Class A infraction in its place.

Timmy Todd Zieman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Bryan Ward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

C.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for an act that would be child molesting if committed by an adult

Robert J. Boswell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for Class A voluntary manslaughter.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?