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

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