ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2014

June 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
South Shore Baseball, LLC d/b/a Gary South Shore RailCats and Northwest Sports Venture, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus
45S03-1308-CT-531
Civil tort. Reverses trial court denial of a motion for summary judgment to the Railcats defendants in a case brought by a fan injured by a foul ball hit into the stands at a minor-league baseball game. Holding the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, remands to the trial court to enter judgment accordingly.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Imbody v. Fifth Third Bank

49A05-1307-CC-322
Collections. Reverses trial court judgment in favor of Fifth Third Bank, holding that a suit seeking to collect on an alleged breach of a promissory note secured by a vehicle was time-barred under the applicable statute. The panel ruled that applicable six-year statute of limitations began to run when Robert Imbody’s vehicle was repossessed in May 2006, therefore, the suit filed in June 2012 was untimely. Instructs the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Imbody.

Alan R. Brill, Business Management Consultants, LP f/k/a Brill Media Company, LP, and the Non-Debtor Companies v. Regent Communications, Inc., n/k/a Townsquare Media, Inc.
82A01-1304-PL-174
Civil plenary. Reverses the denial of Regent’s motion to dismiss. Rules Virginia law governs the substantive and procedural issues in the business agreements from 2000 and 2002. Therefore, Brill failed to file its complaint within the five-year statute of limitations provided by Virginia law.

J.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1311-EX-1003
Agency action. Affirms dismissal of request for unemployment benefits.

Edward D. Bagshaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1305-CR-236
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and 65-year sentence.

Joseph D. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-883
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and remands to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court’s stated reasons for revocation.
 
Jeffrey Allen Gosney, Jr. v. Teri Gosney (NFP)
53A01-1310-DR-452
Domestic relation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions to reconcile inconsistent orders regarding father’s parenting time.

Richard R. Hogshire v. Ursula Hoover (NFP)
06A01-1309-DR-402
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands, finding the trial court erred in ordering Hogshire to pay $750 a week in maintenance to Hoover and to pay outstanding and future fees to an expert witness hired to valuate his businesses.
 
Charles Swift v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence and convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class C felony robbery.

Clifford Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1311-CR-983
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT