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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT