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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT