Opinions Oct. 30, 2012

October 30, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Lisa J. Kane v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property and remands for retrial. The trial court improperly instructed the jury on the mental state required to convict Kane.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Nathaniel Kappel v. William Kappel, Judith Kappel, and Mark Kappel
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of the estate’s recovery of insurance proceeds, directive that William and Mark Kappel withdraw their claims against the estate, and the denial of the complaint for contribution. Also affirms denial of the request the estate pay William, Judith and Mark Kappel’s attorney fees. The probate court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous based on the evidence.

Boulder Acquisition Corp. (n/k/a Affiliated Computer Services, LLC), et al. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
Agency appeal. Reverses liability administrative law judge’s decision to combine BAC’s unemployment experience account with all its subsidiaries’ accounts and in recalculating BAC and the subsidiaries’ contribution rates. BAC is not a successor employer to the subsidiaries under I.C. 22-4-10-6(a) or 22-4-11.5-7. Remands to the Department of Workforce Development to adjust their respective experience accounts accordingly and to refund any overpayment by BAC and/or the subsidiaries.

Mark Carter and John E. Carter, Co-Personal Rep. of the Estate of John O. Carter, M.D., Deceased v. Loretta Robinson, Individually and as Admin. of the Estate of John E. Robinson, Deceased
Civil tort. Affirms $550,000 verdict in favor of Loretta Robinson, individually and as administratix of the estate of John E. Robinson, deceased, following John Robinson’s complaint for medical malpractice. Concludes Dr. James Bryant’s expert opinion is based on a proper use of the differential etiology methodology, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Dr. Michael Kaufman as a witness in support of Carter. Denies Robinson’s request for attorney fees.

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, et al. v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC
Agency appeal. Reverses approval by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission of a substitute natural gas purchase and sale agreement between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification. The utilities and industrial group’s claims are justiciable, the commission did not exceed its jurisdiction when it approved the contract, and the contract’s definition of retail end use customer inappropriately included industrial transportation customers even though the Legislature did not intend for these customers to be subject to the Substitute Natural Gas Act as retail end use customers. Chief Judge Robb concurs in part and dissents in part.

Kevin Reaves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of the Revocable Trust of Mary Ruth Moeder (NFP)
Trust. Affirms order modifying the trust agreement.

Thomas R. Clements v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of verified petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

State of Indiana v. Christopher Holloway (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses revision of Holloway’s sentence and remands with instructions to reinstate the original sentence.

Demetriese Gunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony strangulation.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."