Opinions Aug. 20, 2014

August 20, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Robin Allman, et al. v. Kevin Smith, et al.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Stays the District Court proceedings against both the Anderson mayor and the city of Anderson. The court denied summary judgment in favor of Smith with respect to two plaintiffs’ claims that they were fired from their city jobs because of their political affiliations and refused to grant Smith’s request for stay pending appeal or the city’s motion for summary judgment and request for a stay. The doctrine of “pendent appellate jurisdiction” allows the city to appeal the denial of the stay.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc. and Roncelli, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., Wilson Iron Works, Inc., Johnson Carpet, Inc., d/b/a Johnson Commercial Interiors
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Fostcorp Heating and Cooling and other appellees on various breach of contract claims and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens stemming from the construction of a movie theatre. Roncelli’s appeal was timely filed and the judgments are supported by the findings. It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award attorney fees, so reverses those fees in favor of the appellees.

Kindred Nursing Centers, d/b/a Royal Oaks Health Care and Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Carrie Etta McGoffney
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Royal Oak’s motion for summary judgment in a proposed medical malpractice complaint. The Journey’s Account Statute applies to revive the complaint.

Westport Homes, Inc. v. Greg Penley and Pam Penley (NFP)
Small claim. Reverses small claims judgment in favor of the Penleys over a breach of contract claim involving a refrigerator. Remands with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Westport.

David Johnson and Ieva S. Johnson and Eva G. Sanders and Joseph K. and Michelle Yeary v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management and Town of Whitestown (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of the appellants’ petition for judicial review.

Larry Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Simone Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jason G. Squier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Eric J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Citi Capital Financial LLC v. Huntington National Bank (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Huntington in a lien property dispute between it and Citi Capital.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of, A.C., Minor Child, and A.C., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms reversal of Brummett’s convictions for child molesting due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Rayshawn Winbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.