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

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