ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2013

October 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
John W. Mullin II v. Temco Machinery Inc.
13-1338
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Temco on Mullin’s lawsuit alleging he was fired because of his age. A reasonable jury could conclude that Temco fired Mullin because of his age. Mullin has put forth ample circumstantial evidence, including examples of suspicious timing and ambiguous statements. Moreover, each of Temco’s alleged reasons for firing Mullin is either genuinely contested, seemingly inaccurate, or both.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Medtronic, Inc., v. Lori A. Malander, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David M. Malander, Sr., Deceased and Kathleen Malander
49A02-1211-CT-925
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment in an action against it by Lori Malander, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of David Malander, deceased, and Kathleen Malander. The Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act does not preempt the claim against Medtronic and genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Medtronic assumed a duty to David Malander.

Matthew Fiandt v. State of Indiana
32A01-1211-CR-496
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor intimidation and one count of Class B misdemeanor harassment. Fiandt failed to make a timely demand for a trial by jury as required by Criminal Rule 22, and, therefore, he was not entitled to have one. Judge Najam dissents.

Robert Corbin v. State of Indiana
75A03-1209-CR-402
Criminal. Reverses denial of Corbin’s request for dismissal of two counts of attempted child seduction. Corbin did not take the substantial steps required to amount to attempted child seduction. In addition, the second count does not even charge a crime under Indiana law.

In the Matter of Mental Health Actions for A.S., Sara Townsend
10A01-1211-MH-501
Mental health. Rules the trial court erred in finding Townsend to be in indirect civil contempt of court because the deceptive actions upon which the ruling was based were undertaken in the absence of a court order and thus cannot be regarded as an act of disobedience. The actions that caused the trial court to issue its order for rule to show cause form the basis for a charge of criminal contempt, not civil contempt. Leaves it for the state to decide whether to file such charges upon remand. Affirms the order directing Townsend to pay A.S’s uninsured medical expenses and $1,000 toward her attorney fees, as well as to pay $500 to Wellstone, because such was a legitimate exercise of the court’s inherent power to impose sanctions.

Frank D. Dinius v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1301-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felonies confinement and domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting of a crime.

Bryan D. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1212-CR-973
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT