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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT