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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT