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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT