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. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT