ILNews

Opinions Sept. 8, 2010

September 8, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Letecia D. Brown v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC and Ford Motor Co.
09-1641
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment dismissing Brown’s FMLA claim following her termination from Ford. The undisputed facts show Brown was absent without leave after failing to give proper FMLA notice for an extension of a previously requested leave period.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gregory Carter v. State of Indiana
32A01-0911-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery resulting in bodily injury as a Class B felony but reverses conviction of theft as a Class D felony due to double jeopardy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when excluding Wal-Mart’s loss-prevention policy and there was no prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire.

Department of Waterworks for the Consolidated City of Indianapolis v. Community School Corp. of Southern Hancock County
93A02-1002-EX-218
Civil. Affirms Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s decision in favor of the school allowing it to install a service pipe in lieu of a water main extension. The IURC properly determined that the water company’s rules do not preclude the school from connecting its new building to an existing water main, and the judges found no other error. Judge Riley dissents.

James Ricketts v. First Horizon Home Loans, et al. (NFP)
49A02-0911-CV-1083
Civil. Affirms denial of motion to correct errors and motion for final judgment.

Robert J. Egierski v. Caterina M. Sergio-Sniadecki (NFP)
71A03-1002-DR-149
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Egierski’s motion to modify the joint legal custody of his son to sole legal custody to father.

Jack M. Estes, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1003-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a Schedule III controlled substance as a Class B felony.

Timothy P. Treacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1031
Criminal. Affirms convictions of operating while intoxicated as a Class D felony and public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.

Steven Griggs v. Steve Querry (NFP)
34A02-1003-SC-287
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Querry for $3,970.31 in damages suffered by Querry.

Michael Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A03-0912-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Lambert C. Genetos, et al. v. Andrew J. Kopko (NFP)
64A05-0912-CV-680
Civil. Reverses judgment entered on the arbitrators’ original award rather than their amended award and remands.

Gerald M. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-376
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove sexually violent predator status.

Joseph M. Sipe v. Laurie L. Sipe (NFP)
32A01-1001-DR-83
Domestic relation. Affirms recalculation of the depreciation of Joseph’s business equipment for purposes of his 2006 income for child support purposes. Affirms valuation and assignment of the cattle and Laurie’s property. Reverses decision to exclude the value of the three horses from the marital estate. Remands for further proceedings.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT