ILNews

Opinions May 21, 2012

May 21, 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

Kristi J. Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Company

United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
11-1631
Civil. Affirms District court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Salin Bank & Trust Company, holding the bank did not violate Cortezano’s rights by firing her due to her husband’s immigration status. Remands to the District Court to strike from the record the names of Cortezano’s three children, as the District Court had not previously ruled on that motion.

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund and Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.; David C. Dvorak; and James T. Crines
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
No. 11-1471
Civil. Affirms District court’s determination that plaintiffs failed to prove Zimmer knowingly misrepresented information. Holds that Zimmer had issued a statement acknowledging that its Durom Cup hip socket orthopedic device was difficult to implant and that further training or revised instructions may be necessary. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not prove that Zimmer misrepresented the reason for high failure rates that one surgeon reported three months after Zimmer issued its statement.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dante Adams v. State of Indiana
15A01-1110-MI-537
Miscellaneous. Holds that while the state failed to provide notice of forfeiture to Adams, the error was not harmful and is not reversible. Affirms the trial court’s order transferring $25,000 in cash seized from Adams to federal authorities.

Wayne A. Moorefield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1112-CR-1149
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony non-support of a dependant child.

James Pierce, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1108-CR-809
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony burglary and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Johnathon Gregg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

James Gerald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1108-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and sentence, enhanced by a habitual offender adjudication.

Sally G. Leonard and Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance, as Subrogee of Sally G. Leonard v. Brandon Vickers, and Weaver Heating & Cooling, Inc. (NFP)
71A03-1110-CT-483
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of motion to strike a document from evidence in favor of appellee.

Alex Gregory Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1109-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Kenneth E. Russell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1112-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony battery.

Cassy Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-921
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Brett Lyle Rork v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-973
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Julio Chavez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-899
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and court’s order that Chavez serve remaining two years of sentence.

Monwell Douglas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1107-PC-388
Post conviction. Affirms 60-year sentence for murder, holding Douglas was not subject to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Richard E. Stanbrough v. Bank of America National Assn. as Successor by Merger to LaSealle Bank National Assn., et al. (NFP)
32A01-1112-MF-577
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Bank of America National Association.

Buster Joel Toschlog v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that Buster Joel Toschlog is a credit-restricted felon.
18A02-1110-CR-958

Christopher D. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1109-CR-501
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, citing double jeopardy grounds. Affirms convictions for Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Joseph Jesse Clark Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1108-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, Class A misdemeanor intimidation and two counts of Class D felony theft.

Demetrus Weems v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1109-CR-513
Criminal. Affrims conviction of and sentence for Class D felony theft.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT