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. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT