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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT