ILNews

Opinions July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday:

Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corp.
29S02-1407-CT-483
Civil tort. Summarily affirms Court of Appeals ruling reversing summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that attorney Carol Sparks Drake presented a genuine item of material fact as to whether defendants intentionally induced her employer, Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton, to terminate her partnership agreement. Remands to the trial court for proceedings.


Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Chris T. Collins v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-PC-887
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief, concluding that the post-conviction court’s denial of Collins’ request of subpoenas was not an abuse of discretion and that denial of his petition was proper.

Jennifer L. Patch v. State of Indiana
68A05-1309-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary. The evidence was sufficient to convict Patch, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Patch’s motion for a mistrial.

Michael B. Eliseo v. State of Indiana
90A04-1307-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms trial court order that Eliseo pay $300 for a supplemental public defender service fee and $166 in court costs. The court has discretion under I.C. 33-40-3-6 and I.C. 33-37-2-3 to order payment of fees above the statutory $100 public defender cap after a finding of indgency, and no hearing is required, the majority opinion held. In a concurring opinion, Judge Patricia Riley found the trial court did not abuse its discretion, but she wrote the court is obligated to conduct a hearing on ability to pay at the time the costs are due.

Joseph D. Barnette, Jr., and Charlene Barnette, and City of Carmel Department of Community Services, Division of Building and Code Services, et al. v. US Architects, LLP, Albert D. Bowen, et al.
29A02-1304-PL-309
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for proceedings. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Bowens because they had not exhausted their administrative remedies before suing the city. Remands with instructions to dismiss U.S. Architects’ and the Bowens’ declaratory judgment complaint, and holds U.S. Architects lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment.

Phyllis Dodson, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Eboni Dodson, Deceased v. Curt D. Carlson, Carmel Hotel Company, d/b/a Grille 39, Seven Corners, Inc., et al.
49A04-1305-CT-267
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Seven Corners. Finds the “going and coming” limitation to the doctrine of respondeat superior absolves Seven Corners of any liability in an accident caused by its employee Carlson. Concludes even though Carlson had dinner and drinks with a client prior to the accident, he was not acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Andrew Prairie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1309-CR-841
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony attempted theft, three counts of Class D felony receiving stolen property, and a count of Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle.

Kelsey Lynn Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1310-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Merrill C. Roberts v. Unlimited, LLC d/b/a Remax Unlimited and Matthew A. Gunning (NFP)
49A05-1306-PL-294
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of an award of attorney fees sought by Roberts.

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




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT