Court opinions

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cheryl Kellogg v. Ball State University, d/b/a Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and Humanities
20-1406
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Magistrate Judge Tim Baker.
Civil. Reverses the Indiana Southern District Court’s award of summary judgment to the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and Humanities on Cheryl Kellogg’s claims under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Finds the district court’s finding that the academy proffered what the court believed were undisputed gender-neutral explanations for Kellogg’s pay was incorrect. Also finds David Williams’ statement contradicts the academy’s explanations for Kellogg’s pay and puts them in dispute. Finally, finds Kellogg can rely on Williams’ statement even though he uttered it outside the limitations window. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Matter of R.L., D.L., and L.L., Children in Need of Services, and A.L. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JC-1259
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the adjudication of mother A.L.’s children as children in need of services. Finds the evidence supports the Marion Superior Court’s determination by a preponderance of the evidence that mother and father R.L. are “unlikely to participate in the necessary care and treatment without the coercive intervention of the Court.”

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tax Analysts, et al. v. Indiana Economic Development Corporation
20A-PL-1141
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court order denying Tax Analysts’ request under the Access to Public Records Act for records of the city of Indianapolis’ response to requests for proposals related to the relocation of Amazon’s future second headquarters. Finds the trial court did not err in ruling that the records sought were exempt from disclosure because they were created during negotiations and did not include terms of a final offer of public financial resources.

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline on Tuesday:

USA v. Eduardo Ramirez
20-1006
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Damon R. Leichty.
Criminal. Affirms Eduardo Ramirez’s 72-month prison sentence for pleading guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. Finds that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana appropriately handled his “aging out” argument as no data supported it. Finds that the district court reasonably justified its above-guidelines sentence and that it is substantively reasonable.

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday.
USA v. Hector S. Castro-Aguirre
19-1074
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Affirms the various drug and conspiracy convictions and sentences of Hector Saul Castro-Aguirre, John Ramirez-Prado, and Rafael Rojas-Reyes. However, vacates Jose Manuel Carrillo-Tremillo’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to launder money upon finding no evidence that would permit a rational trier of fact to connect Carrillo-Tremillo to a conspiracy to launder money. Remands his case for resentencing.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paula Henderson v. New Wineskin Ministries Corporation
20A-CT-1317
Civil tort. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to New Wineskin Ministries Corporation on Paula Henderson’s negligence complaint after she slipped and fell in the church parking lot. Finds “premises” as used in Indiana Code Section 34-31-7-2 includes parking lots and the undisputed evidence shows the danger that caused Henderson’s injury was not hidden. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to New Wineskin.

The following Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline on Tuesday.
Brian J. Allen v. State of Indiana
20S-XP-506
Expungement. Reverses the Dearborn Superior Court’s order denying Brian Allen’s petition for expungement and remands with instructions for the court to reconsider its decision consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Finds Allen was eligible for an expungement and that the trial court didn’t indicate why it denied Allen’s petition for expungement.