ILNews

Opinions Oct. 23, 2012

October 23, 2012
Keywords
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.
11-2464
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
49S02-1203-CT-137
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
49A05-1109-PL-486
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
01A02-1203-CR-207
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
69A01-1203-CR-110
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)
34A04-1204-DR-222
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.









 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT