Opinions Oct. 23, 2012

October 23, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
Civil. Reverses in part and affirms in part, affirming the district court injunction against I.C. 5-22-17-5.5(b) that bars state or federal funding for “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” The circuit court held that Medicaid grants individual rights under federal civil rights protections, but reversed the district court with regard to federal block grant funds, holding that no such actionable protection exists.

Indiana Supreme Court
National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS, Inc., NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Ernst & Young, holding that collateral estoppel precludes the plaintiffs’ deception claim because the veracity of the defendant’s documents at issue had been decided during arbitration proceedings.
Indiana Court of Appeals
State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of DMY and denial of summary judgment in favor of State Auto, holding that language in insurance policies regarding pollutants was ambiguous. The court also remanded to the trial court to review settlement agreements between Indiana Farmers and DMY and to consider valid contribution of credit issues.

David Mathews v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Mathews adjudication as a habitual offender. The court held that the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant Mathews’ request for a mistrial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions sentence for child molestation. The court found the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant did not warrant the 60-year aggregate term of imprisonment assessed by the trial court. Instead, it reversed and remanded with instructions to revise the sentencing order to run the two 30-year sentences concurrently for an aggregate 30-year term of imprisonment. Judge Crone dissented, arguing for a partially consecutive sentence.

David A. Young v. Gladys C. Young (NFP)
Divorce. Reverses and remands a dissolution of marriage order with instructions to equally divide the marital estate not subject to a prenuptial agreement and reverses the order awarding incapacity maintenance with instructions to determine whether wife has ability to support herself absent an award.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline Tuesday.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.