ILNews

Indiana justices accept 4 cases, deny 27

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will decide the defamation case filed by Herbert and Bui Simon against a California attorney. The justices will also decide whether a woman’s lawsuit for unpaid wages should have been brought before the Indiana Department of Labor before she filed her action.

The justices took four cases: Joseph A. Davis v. Herbert Simon and Bui Simon, 49S04-1208-CT-498; Brandy L. Walczak, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Labor Works - Fort Wayne LLC, d/b/a Labor Works, 02S04-1208-PL-497; Ronald B. Hawkins v. State of Indiana, 20S03-1208-CR-499; and Whiskey Barrel Planters Co., Inc. d/b/a Diggs Enterprises, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Robinson Family Enterprises, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, Ralph Richard Robinson and Ann Robinson v. American Gardenworks, Inc., an Indiana Corporation and Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC, 04S03-1209-PL-503.

In Davis, the Simons sued California attorney Joseph Davis for defamation based on comments he made to an Indianapolis television station regarding lawsuits involving the Simons. The Court of Appeals ruled on interlocutory appeal an attorney, in answering a reporter’s unsolicited questions – in which Davis made comments regarding the allegations of a lawsuit and represented that the allegations were truthful – without more, doesn’t constitute “expressly aiming” one’s conduct at the forum state. Judge James Kirsch dissented, believing Davis’ conduct was expressly aimed at Indiana.

In Walczak, Brandy Walczak alleged violations of the Wage Payment Statute and the Wage Deduction Statute against Labor Works-Fort Wayne, which provides temporary day-laborer services to businesses. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for Labor Works, finding Walczak first had to submit her claim to the Department of Labor for resolution.
 
In Hawkins, the Court of Appeals held that Ronald Hawkins’ due process rights weren’t violated when he was charged in absentia and without trial counsel on felony nonsupport of a dependent child charges. The judges ruled one of the felonies should be reduced from a Class C to a Class D, and they found he waived his right to counsel. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented because “of the importance of an attorney for a fair proceeding.”

In Whiskey Barrel, the Court of Appeals ruled that a company that acquired Whiskey Barrel Planters was not entitled to the Purdue football season tickets purchased by Whiskey Barrel’s former owner based on the purchase agreement between the two companies. The judges also found that American GardenWorks was not entitled to collect on loans made by Whiskey Barrel to the previous shareholders and that AGW did not acquire the shareholders’ personal property under the terms of the agreement. The COA remanded for further proceedings.

The high court also declined to take 27 cases for the week ending Aug. 31.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT