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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT