ILNews

Opinions June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kenneth Harper v. C.R. England, Incorporated
11-2975
U. S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s determination that Harper failed to set forth a prima facie case, under either the direct or indirect method of proof, to support his claim that C.R. England had retaliated against him for reporting what he believed to be unlawful racial discrimination. Holds that his record shows excessive absences were the cause for his termination.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael A. Gargano, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al. v. Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc., et al.
49A02-1105-PL-449
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s determination that the Family and Social Services Administration had acted unlawfully in refusing to accept applications for Residential Care Assistance Program funds after Dec. 1, 2009, holding that the agency had acted within its power to meet budget constraints. Also reverses trial court’s finding that reimbursement rates were unlawful and remands for further proceedings.

Tricia L. Sexton v. Travis Sexton
34A02-1111-DR-1059
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s order of emancipation of a daughter, holding that the daughter put herself outside the care or control of her parents and was self-supporting, and that the trial court did not err in determining that she was emancipated.

Betwel Birari v. State of Indiana
49A02-1111-CR-1009
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s conviction of attempted rape as a class B felony, finding evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction and that a prosecutor’s comments did not result in fundamental error.

Kent A. Easley v. State of Indiana, Shelby County Prosecutor's Office, R. Kent Apsley, J. Brad Landwerlen, Shelby Co. Probation Dept., Deanna Holder, Shelby Co. Superior Ct One Clerk, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1109-CT-975
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order dismissing Easley’s motion for default judgment.

William A. Wiley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1111-CR-1072
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Michael Kucholick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1109-CR-907
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief but reduces sentence to advisory standard of four years, with two years suspended to probation and two years to be executed in community corrections. Judge Edward Najam concurred in part and dissented in part.

Blake Clunie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1109-PC-458
Post conviction. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct error in Clunie’s erroneous filing of his petition for post-conviction relief, which was filed under the original cause number instead of the post-conviction cause number.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT