ILNews

Opinions Sept. 2, 2011

September 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Gary Williams and Nancy Meehan v. Rohm and Haas Pension Plan
10-1978, 10-2175, 10-3713
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms $180 million settlement and approval of $43.5 million in attorney fees. The District Court adequately addressed the expected value of the early retirees’ claims. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by not creating a separately represented subclass of early retirees. The 7th Circuit sees no reason to disturb the District Court’s assessment of attorney fees.

United States of America v. Jake Richardson III
11-1205
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Criminal. Richardson has not shown that the District Court erred by admitting the physical evidence found on him after a traffic stop or by admitting evidence of the statements Richardson volunteered to police.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James Daher v. Mark Sevier
52A04-1103-MI-150
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of prisoner Daher’s request for a temporary restraining order. Daher’s complaint about the jumpsuits falls so far below the Eighth Amendment threshold of cruel and unusual punishment that it can be fairly characterized as a trivial complaint in that context.

Kirby D. Edwards v. State of Indiana
18A02-1102-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms determination that Edwards is a sexually violent predator. The trial court, after weighing the doctors’ reports and testimony, considering the presentence investigation report, and finding that Edwards also had a lack of remorse, did not abuse its discretion in determining he should be classified as a SVP. Also, Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.5(e) does not require that the doctors who evaluate a defendant conduct the evaluations separately.  

Visitation of P.V.D. and P.I.D.; P.M. v. K.B.
45A03-1102-JM-79
Juvenile. Reverses denial of mother P.M.’s request that the trial court set aside its previous order granting maternal grandmother K.B. visitation with P.M.’s minor children. The trial court erroneously denied P.M.’s request for relief from the default judgment. Lake County was not the proper venue for the grandmother’s petition. Remands with instructions to rescind the previous order granting K.B. visitation with the children under the Grandparent Visitation Act.

Anthony Wheeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-PC-22
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony W. Dalton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony battery and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT