ILNews

Opinions Sept. 9, 2011

September 9, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Autumn Eaton v. Indiana Department of Corrections, Pendleton Juvenile Corrections Facility

10-3214
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Reverses judgment of the District Court, finding that sufficient evidence exists to preclude summary judgment in favor of Eaton’s employer, the Indiana Department of Corrections, in her Title VII discrimination claim. Remands to the court for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In re: Vikram Buddhi
10-3802
U.S. District Court, Northern, District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Civil. Denies petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the 7th Circuit Court rescind the District Court’s order requiring money in Buddhi’s prison trust account to be applied to his filing fee and special assessment against him that was part of his sentence. Holds that Buddhi’s appeal from the denial of his motion to reconsider his sentence is being affirmed in a separate order.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Shawnee Construction and Engineering, Inc. v. Don C. Stanley, Jr.
02A04-1010-CT-610
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Stanley and denial of Shawnee’s summary judgment motion, holding that Shawnee did not contractually assume a duty to Stanley. Remands to the trial court with instructions to grant Shawnee’s summary judgment motion.

Matthew Conder v. State of Indiana
49A02-1012-PC-1404
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief, holding Conder failed to prove his claims of his counsel’s deficient performance or prejudice.

Martha Sienkowski v. Frederick E. Verschuure
46A03-1101-CT-5
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s refusal to consider an affidavit from a juror to impeach the jury’s verdict post-trial, holding that regardless of whether the jury verdict was unanimous, it may not be impeached by the testimony or affidavit of the jurors who return it.

Michael Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Frances Collins v. Jean Ann Elsfelder (NFP)
82A01-1009-PL-456
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct error. Reverses allocation of credit card debt and remands to the court to modify distribution of debt amount.

Melvin Bishop v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-CR-1
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony rape. Reverses conviction of and sentence for Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor on double jeopardy grounds and remands to the trial court to vacate that conviction and sentence.

James Mason v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1101-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Doris Autry, et al. v. Central Soya Company, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A02-1102-CT-193
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Autry’s request for attorney fees.

Joseph Fairrow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1012-CR-765
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Joseph Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1011-CR-1286
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic and associated charges.

Cyrus C. Turpin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1012-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Richard K. Orem v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1106-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Orem serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence for Class D felony strangulation in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Beverly Jinkins v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1006-PL-371
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cumis.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.B.and L.B.: T. B. and R.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
15A04-1103-JT-130
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Kara Day v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Manuel Rosas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony child molesting.

Jose Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted murder and sentence enhancement for acting at the direction of or in affiliation with a gang.

Courtney Arseneau v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1393
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Shyreeta R. Members v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-CR-12
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT