ILNews

Opinions May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems Inc. v. Real Action Paintball Inc. and K.T. Tran
13-3005
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Reverses finding that the court has personal jurisdiction and that Advanced Technical was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Remands with directions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence that defendant Real Action has the necessary minimum contacts with Indiana to support specific jurisdiction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dan Weaver v. George Niederkorn
49A05-1309-CT-448
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Weaver’s motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in favor of Niederkorn. Weaver has not established reversible error.

Carroll Creek Development Company, Inc. v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana
02A03-1307-PL-282
Civil plenary. Reverses partial summary judgment to the town on one part of Carroll Creek’s breach of contract claim. The trial court erroneously interpreted the contract as a matter of law. Remands for further proceedings.

Guadalupe Puente v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana, PNC Bank, Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., and Meridian Title Corp.
45A03-1304-PL-159
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Fidelity on the issue of whether it is entitled to subrogation of Puente’s liability claims. The contract allows Fidelity to stand in the shoes of its insured with respect to Puente’s potential causes of action.

James Cody Ertel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1307-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Brian S. Moore v. Kristy L. Moore (NFP)
49A04-1308-DR-401
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of parenting time and legal custody, reverses income imputed to father for child support purposes in the amount of $50,000 a year and remands for further proceedings.

George H. Glawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1309-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony failure to return to lawful detention.

In Re: The Visitation of H.B., A.B. v. T.S. and A.S. (NFP)
87A01-1309-MI-415
Miscellaneous. Remands to the trial court for new findings and conclusions without hearing new evidence as the findings and conclusions by the trial court regarding relevant factors are incomplete.

Robert Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1309-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms finding that Campbell was in contempt of court but remands for the trial court to impose a sentence not exceeding six months. Affirms decisions forbidding the application of good-time credit in these circumstances.

In re the Adoption of M.D.: S.D. (Father) v. S.F. (Mother), and D.M. (Adoptive Parent) (NFP)
71A03-1309-JP-363
Juvenile. Affirms grant of stepfather’s petition to adopt M.D.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT