Opinions April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Marsh Supermarkets. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marsh damages based on Roche’s rental obligation under the 18-year term of the sublease after Roche terminated it over a subordination non-disturbance and attornment agreement. Judge Crone dissents.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

Miscellaneous. Grants state’s petition for rehearing but still concludes the trial court abused its discretion by denying Curtis’ motion for relief from judgment. Finds that where the underlying offense actually charged is fraud and not theft or conversion, there is no predicate for forfeiture.

Daniel G. Suber & Associates v. Edward Smith (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Smith’s motion to enforce an equitable lien and the award of attorney fees. Denies Smith’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Edward E. Wroblewski v. Linda M. (Wroblewski) Cain (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms judgment issued in favor of Linda Cain resolving various petitions and motions related to the post-secondary education component of the parties’ child support obligations.

Aaron Ingle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Rickie B. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Charles Dunmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Trivest Partnership, L.P. v. James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Trivest Partner’s motion for attorney fees against Gagan, Wittlinger, Allen and Deutsch.

Fayette County Board of Commissioners v. Howard Price (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the board of commissioner’s motion for summary judgment after the court concluded that the board’s decision not to reappointment Price as director of highway operations was a quasi-judicial decision that is subject to judicial review.

Baldemar Lopez Saldana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to dismiss Saldana’s appeal for relief from a ruling entered against him.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: W.S.; B.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Andrew Ray Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park and Class D felony unlawful possession of a hypodermic needle.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. 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?

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