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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT