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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT