Opinions March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Sarah A. Randall and Rona C. Pepmeier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, et al
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s denial of motion to intervene. Also affirms denial of class certification, stating plaintiffs’ expert made several errors while alleging that base-pay differential was attributable to discrimination, among them including in the comparison employees hired after the beginning of the complaint period. States Rolls-Royce’s expert shot down plaintiffs’ claim of discrimination in base pay under Title VII by showing that once differences in the jobs performed by male and female employees in each compensation category are corrected for, the sex-correlated difference in base pay disappears.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Antonio D. Jones v. James Basinger
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Remands with instructions to grant writ of habeas petition. Reverses District Court’s affirmation that Jones was not entitled to a habeas petition, citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. States that informant’s double-hearsay against Jones was used as substantive evidence to prove Jones’ guilt, violating his Sixth Amendment rights.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas Dexter v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent and determination of habitual offender status, stating expert witness testimony was admissible and jury was properly instructed.

Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. Ronald W. Ritz and Sandra J. Ritz
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s dismissal, stating Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources’ failure to prosecute in a timely manner resulted in minimal prejudice to the Ritzes. States that Indiana courts have upheld the precept that the state of Indiana’s ownership of property is not subject to statutes of limitation, and that the DNR had a prior recorded deed of ownership for the property. Remands for further proceedings.

Anjanette L. Silvers v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s decision to revoke probation, stating trial court failed to properly advise Silvers of her right to counsel, and therefore her decision to waive that right is not valid. Remands for proceedings consistent with appeals court’s decision.

Michael B. Adams v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and court’s decision to suspend Adams’ license and registration. States sufficient evidence existed for conviction, and license and registration suspension were appropriate, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-15.

Kevin R. Ash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony stalking.  

Richard Emmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny motion for sentence modification.

Terrance Tindall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony dealing in marijuana.

Edward Murrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post-conviction relief petition. Affirms trial court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Michael Vest v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to impose maximum sentence for misdemeanor conversion.

Julius Finch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony dealing in marijuana.

Jerry W. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony dissemination of matter harmful to a minor.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.W., et al.; A.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights to her three children.

Perry Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to revoke probation.

Emmett L. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to revoke probation and impose sentence.

Jeffrey L. Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Joseph P. Holstead v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. United Minerals Co., LLC (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s order to vacate notice of violation. Remands to administrative law judge for review.

Roberto S. Campos v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony attempted murder.

Paternity of B.P.; D.V. v. B.P. (NFP)
Juvenile paternity. Reverses and remands to trial court the calculation of father’s child support obligation, stating court used wrong multiplier. Affirms trial court’s denial of father’s petition regarding use of tax exemption and of initial child support determination.

Jerome Crowder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life.

Theodore T. Schwartz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony rape, two counts Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony burglary, Class A felony robbery, Class B felony criminal confinement, Class D felony strangulation, and Class D felony auto theft.

Randy Deal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Timothy W. Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to permit testimony stating Robertson was the robber in a surveillance video.

Indiana Tax Court has posted no opinions as of IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues