ILNews

Opinions Sept. 26, 2012

September 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Sandra M. Bontrager, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Michael A. Gargano and Patricia Casanova
11-3710
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms grant of Bontrager’s request for a preliminary injunction in her putative class-action complaint challenging Indiana’s $1,000 annual limit for dental services covered by Medicaid. The state is required to cover all medically necessary dental services, irrespective of the monetary cap.

United States of America v. Christopher Spears
11-1683
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of aggravated identity theft. Spears sold his customer a fraudulent handgun permit bearing her own identifying information, which she then used in an attempt to buy a firearm, violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(6), a qualifying predicate felony for aggravated identity theft. Affirms conviction of producing a false identification document, as the fake driver’s license underlying this count is sufficiently realistic that a reasonable jury could conclude that it appears to be issued by the state of Indiana. Reverses conviction of unlawful possession of five or more false identification documents because two of the documents introduced are photocopies. Remands for resentencing.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Steven J. Hirst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1204-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Randy G. Cobb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1203-PC-117
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Leaders Staffing LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Jason P. Ballard (NFP)
93A02-1202-EX-149
Agency action. Reverses decision that Leaders Staffing did not meet its burden of proving that Ballard was discharged for just cause.

Jason Tye Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1202-CR-123
Criminal. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Jessie M. Spears v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Meijer Stores Limited Partnership (NFP)
93A02-1106-EX-519
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Daniel Nolan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1205-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class C felony incest.

Kevin A. Nasser v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1202-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery by body waste, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class B misdemeanors battery, disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

Brandon King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1202-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms denial of King’s request at his sentencing hearing to withdraw his guilty pleas to five felonies under three cause numbers.

Joshua Banks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute.

Gregory D. Webster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1203-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class B felony possession of cocaine.

Baron D. McClung v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1202-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT