ILNews

Opinions Sept. 5, 2012

September 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Victor George v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Inc.
11-3291
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Vacates grant of Junior Achievement’s motion for summary judgment on the Employment Retirement Income Security Act claim and dismissal of George’s state-law claims without prejudice. The District Court must decide whether there is some other ground on which the case may be resolved short of trial or whether a trial on causation is necessary.  

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cody B. Honeycutt v. State of Indiana
92A04-1203-CR-149
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to dismiss charges on grounds that they were barred by the Successive Prosecution Statute. Because the four charges were supported by probable cause and based on a series of acts so connected that they constituted parts of a single scheme or plan, they should have been charged in a single prosecution.

Napoleon Gracia, Sr. v. State of Indiana
34A04-1112-CR-667
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony disarming of a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. While the filing of charges in Howard Superior Court I was an error, Gracia did not object to the filing and was unable to show fundamental error. He is also not entitled to the jury instruction on excessive use of force by police and his sentence is appropriate.

William LaShun Caples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms denial of Caples’ motion to set aside jury verdict convicting him of three counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles Blakemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Najee S. Blackman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1203-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Estate of Lewis G. Mark, Deceased, and Evelyn J. Mark v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
71A03-1203-MF-143
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for 1st Source as to its foreclosure complaint.

In the Matter of Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H., C.H., & A.H.; and D.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
54A05-1202-JT-56
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Z.B., G.B., K.B., & S.B.; and T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
64A03-1201-JT-31
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT