ILNews

Opinions May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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


Susan Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co.; James Jirak, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.
Nos. 10-3855, 11-1980, 11-2131
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a decision that combined cases from District courts in Indiana and Illinois, the court concludes that under the regulations of the Department of Labor, the pharmaceutical sales representatives are classified properly within the administrative exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Affirms judgment in favor of Eli Lilly on whether sales reps were entitled to overtime.  

Clifton Sandifer, et. al. v. United States Steel Corporation
10-1821, 10-1866
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Civil. Affirms interlocutory appeal from United States Steel Corporation, which claimed that “travel time” for employees to walk from the locker room to their work stations should not be a compensable act. A District court judge had certified that question for interlocutory appeal, but had ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not allow for compensation of changing clothes. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and the 7th Circuit affirmed the District court.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Ashanti Clemons v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-PC-737
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief. Clemons was not denied effective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel.

Halston Thomas v. State of Indiana
49A02-1109-CR-830
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The state established that Gordon was unavailable to testify at trial and that Thomas had an opportunity to cross-examine her at the deposition, which was testimonial in nature.

Douglas P. Wilson, Jr. v. State of Indiana
79A05-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while suspended. By abandoning his vehicle after being pulled over by police, Wilson relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. There is sufficient evidence to support his drug convictions and sentence.

In the Matter of Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, D.H. & G.H., and D.B.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1109-JC-425
Juvenile. Affirms determination that children are in need of services.

In Re the Marriage of: Tanya A. (Bennett) Louderback v. Edward L. Bennett (NFP)
58A01-1109-DR-449
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting Bennett’s motion to modify custody, awarding primary custody to Bennett.

Clinton Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1110-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms denial of fourth motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Henry L. Shell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-1107-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Mark Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1110-CR-541
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Zachary Bowser v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1107-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms order denying motion to suppress evidence and remands for further proceedings.

Kathryn Gillespie v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1106-EX-539
Agency appeal. Affirms decision that Gillespie is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Juan Murillo Bravo v. Silvia Bravo and Rancho Bravo, Inc. (NFP)
54A01-1108-PL-354
Civil plenary. Affirms order awarding attorney fees to Rancho Bravo and Silvia Bravo.

C.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1110-JT-593
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.B. and P.B.; E.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
35A04-1111-JT-629
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Robert Allen Barker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1109-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Paul T. Dhaenens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1111-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal confinement and Class D felony domestic battery.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT