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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT