Opinions

Opinions March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Darryl Harris v. United Water Services, Inc.
93A02-1010-EX-1164
Civil. Reverses the decision by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board affirming the grant of United Water’s motion to dismiss. Harris’ deposition testimony doesn’t support the board’s finding that he admitted that his condition stemmed from a single incident and the board applied the wrong burden of proof. Remands for further proceedings.
More

Opinions March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Dennis Jamison
10-1515
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Jamison’s conviction of possessing a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. sections 5861(d) and 5845(a). During his trial, the district court permitted the government to elicit testimony from Jamison’s wife on cross-examination regarding Jamison’s aggressiveness. Jamison appeals his conviction, arguing that the question and his wife’s response were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, unduly cumulative, and lacked foundation. The government claims that the evidence demonstrated Mrs. Jamison’s bias and motive to lie.
More

Opinions March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
C.G. LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Devel., et al.
93A02-1004-EX-441
Civil. Reverses and remands decision by Appellee Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that determined appellees/employees T.A., et al. were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
More

Opinions March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark Siliven, et al. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al.
10-2701
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms District Court conclusion that Terry Suttle, director of the Wayne County DCS, and case manager Amber Luedike were entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds, finding the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not clearly established in January 2008. Probable cause existed to remove C.S. from his father’s custody so there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The use of state action to protect C.S. from his father was reasonable.
More

Editorial - SB 590: An Arizona-style invitation for litigation

March 16, 2011
The past weeks have brought heated debate about immigration policy to our state. The Indiana General Assembly is currently considering various anti-immigrant bills. Among them is Senate Bill 590, modeled after Arizona’s immigration law. Currently being challenged in Federal District Court on constitutional grounds, Arizona’s law has invited much criticism and proved costly to the state’s economy. Indiana should not be next in line.
More

Morris: Internet is the Wild West of blog posting

March 16, 2011
When you post a comment to a story on a media website, you are responsible for your words. At least that is the case at this time. Contrary to that opinion, many people think hiding behind an anonymous identity online should be a protected right.
More

Limitation of liability provision enforceable

March 16, 2011
David Temple
On March 2, 2011, the federal district court in Indianapolis issued a rather innocuous and unassuming opinion in SAMS Hotel Group, LLC v. Environs, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2011), No. 1:09-CV-00930-TWP-TAB. However, its ramifications may be far-reaching and are surely welcomed by design professionals working on projects in Indiana.
More

Opinions March 15, 2011

March 15, 2011
Indiana Supreme Court
Debra L. Walker v. David M. Pullen
64S05-1101-CT-6
Civil tort. Reverses grant of Pullen’s motion to have a new trial and remands for the trial court to reinstate the original jury verdict of $10,070. The trial court judge only made general findings and not special findings as required by Indiana Trial Rule 59(J). Justice Dickson concurs in result.
More

Opinions March 14, 2011

March 14, 2011

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
In Re: Gerald W. Davis Jr.; Linda Reeves v. Gerald W. Davis Jr.
10-2757
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court ruling that Davis’ debt owed to Reeves was dischargeable. There was no finding of fraudulent intent on Davis’ part, as is required for the application of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2) to prevent Davis’ debt to Reeves from being dischargeable. The decision in United States v. Childs forecloses a challenge to the reasonableness of the traffic stop.

More

Opinions March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Molly C. Wilson v. Charles W. Wilson (NFP)
62A04-1004-DR-269
Domestic relation. Affirms order dissolving marriage and distributing marital property.
More

Opinions March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paternity of X.K.T.; J.L.H. v. B.L.T. (NFP)
67A01-1005-JP-212
Juvenile. Dismisses father’s appeal of the trial court order against him finding him in contempt for failure to pay child support.
More

Opinions March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Peggy Abner and Linda Kendall v. Scott Memorial Hospital
10-2713
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Denies motion to file an oversized brief and affirms summary judgment for Scott Memorial Hospital in a suit under the False Claims Act. Finds the appeal has no merit and the appellant’s attorney flagrantly violated the word limit for the brief.
More

Opinions March 8, 2011

March 8, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana
82A01-1005-CR-223
Criminal. Reverses Gray’s conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. She contended there was insufficient evidence that she constructively possessed the marijuana. Judge Cale Bradford dissents, writing that Gray was in close proximity to the marijuana and that it was in plain view, as officers had testified at trial.
More

Opinions March 7, 2011

March 7, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Martin Avila
09-2681
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms 365-month sentence for drug offenses following re-sentencing on remand. The District Court corrected the drug quantity attributable to Avila. The District Court did not violate the cross-appeal rule and acted within the scope of the remand.
More

Opinions March 4, 2011

March 4, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
In Re: Rich Bergeron
10-3279
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Denies Bergeron’s petition for mandamus removing Judge Barker from Eppley v. Iacovelli, pending in the District Court. Bergeron is involved in that suit and was held in contempt for not removing web postings. Regarding Bergeron’s contempt proceeding, Bergeron didn’t ask the 7th Circuit to stay the proceeding in the District Court and it’s now too late to order the judge removed from the case because she’s through with it. The appearance of impropriety in this case is too attenuated to justify that extraordinary remedy.
More

Opinions March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al.
49A02-1002-PL-125
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to enjoin the commission from issuing new beer dealer’s permits in locations in which the statutory limits on the number of beer dealer’s permits have been met or exceeded. The Commission’s interpretation of 7.1-3 is reasonable and doesn’t violate Title 7.1. The IABR also failed to show its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if no injunction is issued.
More

Opinions March 2, 2011

March 2, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
County Council of Porter County v. Northwest Indiana Regional Dev. Authority, et al.
37A04-1004-CT-291
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority and the denial of the council’s motion for summary judgment on the council’s complaint seeking declaratory judgment it has the right to withdraw from the RDA. Porter County cannot withdraw from the RDA and the council waived its argument that the original legislation establishing the RDA Act is unconstitutional special legislation.
More

Opinions March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Gary Hughes
18A02-1006-PL-659
Civil. Reverses and remands entry of judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Gary Hughes on his contract claim in the amount of $166,792.83. Auto-Owners contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying its summary judgment motion on the basis that Hughes’ suit was barred by a one-year limitation in the relevant insurance policy.
More

Opinions Feb. 28, 2011

February 28, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
David E. Schalk v. State of Indiana
53A01-1005-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana. Schalk arranged a drug buy to try to discredit a witness against his client. An attorney is not exempt from criminal law even if his only purpose is the defense of his client.
More

Opinions Feb. 25, 2011

February 25, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Brian Holtzleiter v. Angela Holtzleiter
48A02-1006-DR-736
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Brian’s petition to modify child support. He hasn’t waived his argument that he is entitled to modification of child support under the requirement that the current support obligation was 20 percent different from what would be required under the guidelines and it had been at least a year since the support order was issued. Remands for the issuance of a new child support order.
More

Opinions Feb. 24, 2011

February 24, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
French C. Mason v. State of Indiana
49A02-1005-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and unlawful use of body armor. The trial court had sufficient evidence to show Mason resisted law enforcement and his crime rose to the Class D felony level and to conclude Mason intended to wear body armor in the aid of the felony of resisting law enforcement through the use of a vehicle.
More

Opinions Feb. 23, 2011

February 23, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Debra K. Sands v. Helen HCI, LLC
06A01-1005-CC-231
Civil collections. Reverses denial of Sands’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement between herself, Helen HCI LLC and two other companies, providing for dismissal with prejudice of Helen HCI’s complaint against Sands in Indiana and dismissal with prejudice of Sands’ complaint against Helen HCI and the other companies in a Wisconsin suit. The parties entered into a binding contract which required the subsequent execution of a document memorializing their agreement and there is no uncertainty as to any substantial term of the settlement contract.
More

Opinions Feb. 22, 2011

February 22, 2011
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Roger D. Slone
09-4089
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and sentence of 120 months in prison. The search incident to his arrest was reasonable and the vehicle evidence was properly admitted against him.
More

Opinions Feb. 21, 2011

February 21, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Burke v. State of Indiana
49A02-1006-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary. Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii), which enhances burglary from a Class C felony to Class B felony if the building or structure burgled is used for religious worship, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.
More

Opinions Feb. 18, 2011

February 18, 2011
Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.W.; M.W. v. I.D.C.S.
32A01-1007-JT-322
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Given the father’s efforts to comply with the amended plan and his release from incarceration soon after the hearing date, the trial court’s findings aren’t supported by clear and convincing evidence.
More
Page  << 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 >> pager
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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT