April 2, 2012

We are currently in the process of moving the Indiana Law Update from one blogging platform to another. Our goal is to have all of the blog's internal links work on the new platform just like they work now. However, if you notice a dead link, please bring it to my attention so that we can fix it as soon as possible.

Thanks!

March 15, 2012

Cook v. IPC Intern. Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2012), Cause No. 11-2502, is an employment discrimination case involving a claim that a woman was discriminated against because of her sex. A jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, Judge Posner criticized the "dreadful muddle" that the trial court an counsel had made of the case.


The Court found that the district court's reliance on these doctrinal metaphors led to a set of jury instructions that confused the jury (as the jury demonstrated during their deliberations). Thus, the case was remanded for a new trial.

Lesson:

Make sure that you know and understand judicial doctrine, rather than relying on metaphor.

March 15, 2012

In EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2012), Cause No. 11-1774, a panel of the Seventh Circuit both showed the level of deference the Court gives to the doctrine of stare decisis and the lengths to which it will go to reverse a decision with which it disagrees.

The resolution of this case depended on the application of a decision the Court issued in 2000. The prior case was on point, but the appellant argued that the rationale underlying the 2000 decision was undermined by a 2002 Supreme Court decision. The panel noted that it had relied on the 2000 case a number of times after 2002 and felt that it should continue to do so.


However, the Court was obviously not wedded to the 2000 decision.


It will be interesting to see if the rest of the Court takes the panel up on this recommendation.

March 7, 2012

As I told you last week, our firm represents a group of plaintiffs in City of Indianapolis v. Armour who are the respondents in a case currently before the Supreme Court of the United States. Oral argument was held in that case last week.

For those interested in following the case, you can either obtain a written transcript or downloadable audio of that argument here.

February 28, 2012

Ron and others from our firm represent the appellees in City of Indianapolis v. Armour, a case that will be argued to the Supreme Court of the United States tomorrow, February 29, 2012. We told you about the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in the case here.

Yesterday, Lyle Denniston with SCOTUSblog published an excellent analysis of the issues to be raised in that argument. If you are interested in understanding what the case is truly about, I recommend this article.

December 29, 2011

"Unlike Humpty Dumpty, however, a litigant cannot use words any way it pleases."

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc. v. BCS Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2011), Cause Nos. 11-2343 & 11-2757.

Judge Easterbrook refuses to be fooled by a party's "artful pleading" when the party calls a motion one thing, though it is really another.

December 12, 2011

Beginning today, the Indiana Law Update will be on hiatus until December 28, 2011. Happy Holidays everyone!

November 16, 2011

Every once in a while, you see a judicial decision that makes you want to shake the hand of the judge that drafted it. Today, Judge Barnes issued a concurring opinion in Green River Motel Mgmt. of Dale, LLC v. State of Indiana, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 74A05-1104-PL-169, which made me want to do just that. The total concurrence is as follows:


I love this opinion for too many reasons to say. Good on you, Judge Barnes.

September 28, 2011

In my practice, I do not interact much with the Department of Child Services in CHINS cases. Therefore, I was surprised that the Indiana Court of Appeals had to reach the decision it did today in In re T.N., ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 49A05-1101-JC-15. In that case, the Court had to say that a parent was denied due process if his child was labeled CHINS (a child in need of services) before he was given the opportunity to be heard on this issue.

I thought that one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that a judge cannot make a judgment adverse to someone without giving that person the opportunity to be heard. Happily, the Court of Appeals agreed.

September 19, 2011

This may be as big of a shock to you as it is to me--those among us who are driving semi-tractors and trailers must follow Indiana's traffic safety laws. I know you may find this hard to believe, but Indiana now has a reported decision clarifying this issue.

In Hory v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 01A04-1011-IF-717, a semi was parked illegally outside of a McDonald's. A police officer saw the semi and watched the vehicle. Hory walked out of the McDonald's and to the semi. The officer then cited Hory for illegal parking. After a bench trial, Hory was found guilty and fined.

On appeal, Hory claimed the following:


For some reason, the Court of Appeals did not find this to be the most persuasive of arguments. Thus, it has been settled--you cannot get out of a ticket merely because you were engaged in interstate commerce at the time you received the ticket.