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. Welcome to Hendricks County where local and state statutes (especially Indiana Class C misdemeanors) are given a higher consideration than Federal statues and active duty military call-ups.

  2. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  3. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  4. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  5. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

ADVERTISEMENT