ILNews

Opinions May 2, 2014

May 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday

Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright and Protect Our Woods Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, Administrator
13-2142
Civil. Affirms District Court rulings of summary judgment in favor of EPA and denial of motion for U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard Young to disqualify himself based on prior rulings. Young correctly found plaintiffs’ motions were moot because a Bloomington PCB cleanup is ongoing, because plaintiffs are not prevailing parties or parties to the original consent decree, and as such they also are not entitled to attorney fees. Young’s decision not to disqualify himself did not deny plaintiffs due process.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Christine Anderson v. Indiana Insurance Company, a member of Liberty Mutual Group
64A03-1309-CT-359
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance, holding the court erred in ruling that Anderson could not recover from Indiana Insurance for injuries sustained in a traffic accident because she had received payment from other sources in excess of the limits of her underinsured motorist policy limit. Remands for proceedings.

Marc M. Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1309-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms one-year executed sentence for conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday.  7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions Friday by IL deadline Friday.

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT