Behind the Scenes

General Bookmark and Share
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!

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Judge Posner Does Not Like Doctrine-as-Metaphor

General Bookmark and Share
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.

This is all a dreadful muddle, for which we appellate judges must accept some blame because doctrine stated as metaphor, such as the "cat's paw" theory of liability, which we introduced into employment discrimination law in Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F.2d 398, 405 (7th Cir. 1990); see Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1190 n. 1, 1192-94 (2011), can be a judicial attractive nuisance; because vague judicial terminology, such as "motivating factor" and "proximate cause" (the latter has been a part of the judicial vocabulary for the last 150 years, yet its meaning has never become clear, see CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Associates, 640 F.3d 209, 214 (7th Cir. 2011); BCS Services, Inc. v. Heartwood 88, LLC, 637 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2011)), confuses judges, jurors, and lawyers alike; and because philosophical conundra such as "causation" present unnecessary challenges to understanding.

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.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

7th Circuit Panel Suggests En Banc Review of Its Own Decision

General Bookmark and Share
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.

While these decisions have not provided detailed analysis, their mere existence and consistent interpretations compel this court to find that Humiston-Keeling remains good law.

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

In that respect, the present panel of judges strongly recommends en banc consideration of the present case since the logic of EEOC's position on the merits, although insufficient to justify departure by this panel from the principles of stare decisis, is persuasive with or without consideration of <em>Barnett.

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

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Transcript and Audio from Recent SCOTUS Argument

General Bookmark and Share
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.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Excellent Analysis of Upcoming Indiana SCOTUS Argument

General Bookmark and Share
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.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Quote of the Day

General Bookmark and Share
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.
top

We're Going on Hiatus

General Bookmark and Share
December 12, 2011

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

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us

top

My Kind of Concurrence

General Bookmark and Share
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 write to concur in full and to acknowledge the precedent our supreme court articulated in State v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., 902 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2009). As the author of the Court of Appeals decision reversed by that opinion, one does not have to be Carnac to realize I disagree. However, our supreme court has spoken, and I concur.

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

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Parent Must Be Given Opportunity to Be Heard Before Child Is Labeled CHINS

General Bookmark and Share
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.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Shocker! Truckers Must Follow Indiana's Traffic Safety Laws

General Bookmark and Share
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:

Hory appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by holding that truck operators may be fined for failing to obey Indiana safety laws. In particular, he claims that he was a trucker engaged in interstate commerce and that, as such, he should have been convicted under Indiana Code section 8-2.1-24-18, a statute that incorporates federal motor safety regulations that pre-empt state law.

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.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top







Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites, their contents, or the activities or views of their owners. Nor does the presence of hyperlinks represent that Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC is verifying the accuracy of any third-party website.

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC | The Hammond Block Building | 301 Massachusetts Avenue | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | Tel: 317-633-8787 | Fax: 317-633-8797

Copyright © Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Indianapolis Class Action and Trial Attorneys | Legal News | Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo