ILNews

Opinions Nov. 1, 2011

November 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Rose Acre Farms Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. and National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford
11-1599
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the insurers on whether they have to defend Rose Acre Farms in the antitrust complaint. The suit for which Rose Acre wants a defense makes no claim that the policy could be thought to cover.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenny D. Lee v. State of Indiana
71A03-1103-CR-118
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The portion of the warrant allowing for the search of all vehicles is invalid because of vague language, so all evidence seized pursuant to the invalid language – in this case, Lee’s statements to police after a traffic stop – must be suppressed. The evidence also doesn’t support that Lee knew of the cocaine and had the ability to control it.

P.M.T., Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and L.A.
93A02-1105-EX-389
Agency appeal. Affirms award of unemployment insurance benefits to L.A. Employer P.M.T.’s attendance policy was unreasonable because it didn’t provide exemptions for verified emergencies nor did it protect employees. L.A.’s absences were the results of circumstances beyond her control.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.D., A.W.D., A.M.D., and A.L.D.; M.A.P. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
50A03-1103-JT-98
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Nexus D. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1103-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Robert D. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1011-CR-663
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. Remands for vacation of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine conviction because it was merged without being vacated.

Michael A. Maxie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1103-CR-117
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for battery on a pregnant woman as a Class C felony and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime.

Ivernon D. Wiseman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1103-CR-83
Criminal. Affirms 16-year and eight-month sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony residential entry and Wiseman’s habitual offender status.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT