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.



Post a comment to this story

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
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.