ILNews

Opinions Nov. 18, 2011

November 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
11-2438
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1700
Denies petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus, holding that the petitioner failed to show that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

David Marks and Karen Marks v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company
45A05-1011-CT-675
Civil tort. On petition for rehearing, affirms original decision in all respects, holding that the semi-trailer from which David Marks fell was owned by a subcontractor of a general contractor, and therefore Northern Indiana Public Service Co. is not liable for the accident.

Alesha Houston and Donna Gruzinsky v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms Houston’s and Gruzinsky’s convictions of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance, holding that the attendance officer at the schools were legally required to prepare and file referral records as part of the proceedings in Gruzinsky’s case, and that regardless of whether Houston’s lawyer had objected to the admission of hearsay documents, the objection would not have been sustained.

Jose J. Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-139
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Becky Melton v. Michael Melton (NFP)
71A03-1105-DR-217
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order denying in part and granting in part Becky Melton’s motion to correct error, holding the court did not abuse its discretion in its division of property.

Tracy D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1102-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 20 years for Class B felony armed robbery, Class D felony pointing a firearm and associated charges.

Becky Jayne Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1012-CR-798
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ratliff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1104-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms executed sentence for Class C felony possession of a controlled substance.

Patricia Abram v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-122
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT