ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2014

August 20, 2014
Keywords
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.
14-1792
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
64A03-1308-PL-318
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
84A04-1402-MI-56
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)
30A01-1403-SC-120
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)
06A05-1310-PL-506
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of the appellants’ petition for judicial review.

Larry Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Simone Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1401-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jason G. Squier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1311-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Eric J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-449
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)
29A02-1307-PL-643
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)
34A05-1402-JT-89
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-378
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms reversal of Brummett’s convictions for child molesting due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Rayshawn Winbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1401-PC-32
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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