« Indiana Decisions - Two stories today | Main | Law - New Uniform Trust Code Causing Waves »

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Indiana Decisons - Three Today from 7th Circuit

Matheney, Alan L. v. Anderson, Rondle (ND Ind., Judge Sharp)

Before BAUER, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. * * * Because we agree with the state courts’ finding that Matheney was competent to stand trial, it follows that the state courts did not err in concluding that Matheney’s trial attorneys provided effective assistance. The post-conviction trial court and the Indiana Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland, or unreasonably determine the facts surrounding Matheney’s representation before his original trial. Thus, even if we were to assume that the trial attorneys’ performance was deficient in not demanding a contemporaneous competency examination and hearing, Matheney’s ineffective assistance claim would fail on the prejudice prong.

III. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Matheney’s petition for habeas corpus relief under § 2254 is AFFIRMED.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. When Matheney was initially brought to trial for this crime, his lawyers sought a determination of his sanity and his competency. The court, however, ordered only a determination of his sanity, and none of the trial attorneys in the case appeared to even notice. In fact, examination of the record in this case reveals repeated instances in which attorneys and judges involved in that trial and his subsequent appeals blur the two, as if the determination that he was not legally insane at the time of the offense somehow also established that he was competent to stand trial. * * * Matheney has met the Strickland standard, demonstrating a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if his attorneys had pursued the competency issue, and accordingly I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the prejudice prong of Strickland was not met. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Asher, Brian v. Baxter Int'l Inc. (ND Ill.)

Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Baxter International, a manufacturer of medical products, released its secondquarter financial results for 2002 on July 18 of that year. Sales and profits did not match analysts’ expectations. Shares swiftly fell from $43 to $32. This litigation followed; plaintiffs contend that the $43 price was the result of materially misleading projections on November 5, 2001, projections that Baxter reiterated until the bad news came out on July 18, 2002. Plaintiffs want to represent a class of all investors * * *. class action, but see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12905 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2003). The court did not doubt that the allegations ordinarily would defeat a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Still, it held, Baxter’s forecasts come within the safe harbor created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-2(c), 78u-5(c). The PSLRA creates rules that judges must enforce at the outset of the litigation; plaintiffs do not question the statute’s application before discovery but do dispute the district court’s substantive decision. * * *
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Laborers' Pension v. RES Envir Services (ND Ill.)
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Chief Judge. This appeal calls upon us to apply the familiar principle that conclusory and immaterial statements contained in an affidavit are insufficient to bar summary judgment. Defendant RES Environmental Services, Inc. (“RES”), relying exclusively on an affidavit submitted by its company owner, seeks reversal of the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs, Laborers’ Pension Fund and Laborers’ Welfare Fund of the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity (the “Funds”). The Funds brought this action against RES pursuant to [ERISA and LMRA] seeking to collect delinquent employee benefit contributions required under a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between RES and its employees’ union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 29, 2004 12:13 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions