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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT