ILNews

Opinions June 9, 2014

June 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 6:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Matthew Whitfield v. International Truck and Engine Corp.
13-1876
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms in part and reverses in part ruling in favor of International Truck and Engine Corp. on Whitfield’s action alleging discrimination in failure to hire and violations of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court ignored some evidence or made conclusions not supported by the evidence. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court
Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor
49T10-1005-TA-23
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s holding that for the 2006 tax year, Housing Partnerships Inc. failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the charitable purposes exemption provided in I.C. 6-1.1-10-16. Housing Partnerships has not demonstrated that the final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to the law.

June 9
Indiana Court of Appeals

Michael Dustin Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1308-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance.

Jarod G. Allred v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1309-CR-393
Criminal. Reverses two convictions of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule III controlled substance. Judge Bailey dissents.

Nathaniel Baston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1311-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of the Adoption of H.S. and D.S., R.S. v. V.C. and M.C. and D.S. and S.S. (NFP)
85A02-1311-AD-996
Adoption. Affirms order granting petitions to adopt H.S. and D.S.

In the Matter of Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health-Bloomington Hospital and Terri Klingelhoefer, MA, LSW (NFP)
53A05-1311-MH-571
Mental health. Dismisses appeal of temporary involuntary commitment since the commitment ended Jan. 13.

Bageera Taylor, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A04-1307-CR-328
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class D felonies strangulation and residential entry and remands for further proceedings. Judge Robb dissents.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court posted no opinions Monday prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions Monday before IL deadline.

 

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