Opinions Oct. 12, 2010

October 12, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America and State of New York, et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al.
No. 1:99-CV-1693
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses District Court ruling in the government’s favor regarding modifications involving sulphur dioxide emissions because Cinergy met the standard that was authorized by a state plan the Environmental Protection Agency approved. Finds the District Court should not have admitted evidence by the EPA’s expert witnesses. Rules that without expert testimony to support an estimate of actual emissions caused by the modifications, the government cannot prevail with respect to the charge of nitrogen oxide pollution. Dismisses cross-appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Murdock v. Estate of Sharron K. Murdock
Civil. Reverses enforcement of marital property settlement document, including its provision that the issue of abandonment is moot, and remands for further proceedings addressing the issue of whether Dwight forfeited the right to inherit from Sharron’s estate after she died during the dissolution process.

Deere & Co. v. Travis Hostetler & New Holland Rochester
Civil collection. Reverses trial court order giving New Holland prejudgment possession of farm equipment and remands with instructions to enter an order granting Deere prejudgment possession of the equipment in question. Rules New Holland was not a bona fide purchaser because it had actual notice of Deere’s liens.

In Re the Guardianship of A.M.N.; M.N. and E.N. v. B.C. (NFP)
Guardianship. Affirms trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the grandparents’ guardianship in favor of mother.

Kenneth Pairsh v. Annette Pairsh (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of Kenneth Pairsh’s request for spousal maintenance and its distribution of marital property

Emmanuel T. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Anthony Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

Luther J. Gant v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and 15-year sentence.

Ronnie Drane v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Michelle Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well