Opinions

Opinions Sept. 24, 2010

September 24, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., State of Indiana v. Ronald Keith Fromme
19A05-0910-CR-602
Criminal. Grants rehearing for clarification and affirms original decision outlining the threshold a defendant must make before obtaining an in camera review of records that are privileged.
More

Opinions Sept. 23, 2010

September 23, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
Commitment of A.L.
49A02-1001-MH-76
Mental health. Affirms order of temporary commitment. Any error in the admission of evidence or consideration of Wishard’s argument as to A.L.’s dangerousness was not a blatant violation of fundamental fairness and didn’t cause substantial and apparent harm to her.
More

Opinions Sept. 22, 2010

September 22, 2010
Indiana Supreme Court
Rosalyn West v. Betty Wadlington,et al.
49S02-1009-CV-509
Civil. Reverses trial court’s grant of Larkin and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s motions to dismiss West’s defamation and invasion of privacy claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Holds that a trial court with general jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of defamation and invasion of privacy is not ousted of jurisdiction merely because a religious defense to the claims is asserted. Remands for further proceedings.
More

Opinions Sept. 21, 2010

September 21, 2010
Indiana Supreme Court
Max Koenig v. State of Indiana
42S04-1009-CR-505
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance as a Class B felony. The admission of the laboratory report without letting Koenig confront the person who created it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California.
More

Opinions Sept. 20, 2010

September 20, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
Obed Kalwitz, Jr., et al. v. Eugene Kalwitz, et al.
46A03-0912-CV-574
Civil. Affirms small claims judgment in favor of siblings Eugene Kalwitz and Sharon Greiger in Obed Kalwitz Jr.’s suit alleging the siblings stole items from land that now belong to the siblings. Affirms ruling on counterclaim for $1,750 compensatory damages for abuse of process, $2,750 in punitive damages, and $900 in attorney’s fees. Obed and Rolene’s request for a change of judge was untimely, and their claim is barred by res judicata. Remands to the small claims court for a determination of the amount of appellate attorney’s fees and costs to which Eugene and Sharon are entitled.
More

Opinions Sept. 17, 2010

September 17, 2010
Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Kenneth E. Lauter
55S00-0906-DI-267
Discipline. A per curiam decision publicly reprimands attorney Kenneth E. Lauter of Morgan County because he didn’t indicate to the client what the additional retainer should be or how it would be determined, thus violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.5 (b) and (c).
Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented, believing that the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission did not prove a charged violation by clear and convincing evidence and that the hearing officer correctly found no violation and recommended a finding in favor of Lauter.
More

Opinions Sept. 16, 2010

September 16, 2010
Indiana Supreme Court

Foundations of East Chicago, Inc., Successor by Merger to East Chicago Community Development Foundation, Inc. and Twin City Education Foundation, Inc. v. City of East Chicago
No. 49S02-0908-CV-00383
Civil. Justices granted a rehearing petition, holding that the city didn’t follow Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E) and was premature in filing a motion at the trial court level before a previous appellate ruling was certified. Justices found the trial court correctly denied the city’s request, and it kept intact its original opinion from May.

More

Opinions Sept. 15, 2010

September 15, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
Alexander Gatzimos, M.D. v. Boone County and State of Indiana
06A05-0911-CV-664
Civil. Grants the state’s motion to dismiss Dr. Gatzimos’ appeal of the trial court order denying his petition for expungement. Remands to the trial court to allow Gatzimos the opportunity to present admissible evidence as to whether his charges were dismissed because of mistaken identity; no offense was actually committed; or there was an absence of probable cause.
More

Opinions Sept. 14, 2010

September 14, 2010

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gerald L. Wilkerson v. State of Indiana
26A01-0909-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to suppress. Compliance with the Pirtle requirement (Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975)) was unnecessary and consent to pat-down search was valid.

More

Opinions Sept. 13, 2010

September 13, 2010


Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Moncrief v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-PC-245
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

More

Opinions Sept. 10, 2010

September 10, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph Finch, David E. Hensley, and Peter W. Mungovan v. Bart Peterson, individually and in his official capacity, et al.
09-2676
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.
Civil. Affirms denial of the city officials’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a suit filed by three white officers alleging discrimination in promotions. The 1978 consent decree between the Indianapolis Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice does not operate to confer qualified immunity on city officials who were involved in making the challenged promotions. Nothing in the decree required them to take race into consideration when making promotions.
More

Opinions Sept. 9, 2010

September 9, 2010
Indiana Supreme Court
Matter of the Estate of Harry L. Rickert
18S04-1002-CV-118
Civil. Reverses judgment in favor of Taylor, who was Rickert’s power of attorney, that she receive the money from accounts in which she was a joint holder. The presumption is that Taylor’s use of her power of attorney to benefit herself made those accounts invalid, and she failed to overcome that presumption to allow her to inherit the money. Remands with direction to order restoration to the estate of bank accounts owned of record by Rickert and Taylor that were created through use of Taylor’s power of attorney from Rickert and lacking any support documentation indicating participation by Rickert.
More

Opinions Sept. 8, 2010

September 8, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Letecia D. Brown v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC and Ford Motor Co.
09-1641
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment dismissing Brown’s FMLA claim following her termination from Ford. The undisputed facts show Brown was absent without leave after failing to give proper FMLA notice for an extension of a previously requested leave period.
More

Opinions Sept. 7, 2010

September 7, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hatter, et al. v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
49A02-0907-CV-659
Civil. Affirms jury trial and verdict in favor of Pierce Manufacturing in the Hatters’ product liability action. Hatter failed to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges and has not shown both of his challenges for cause were improperly denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the giving of jury instructions or in excluding evidence and did not err by denying Hatter’s partial motion for judgment on the evidence.
More

Opinions Sept. 3, 2010

September 3, 2010

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Trent L. Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors Inc.
09-1347
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Reverses denial of Fort-Rohr’s motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury found in Chapin’s favor in his retaliation suit. Fort-Rohr was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Chapin did not produce sufficient evidence to support an actual or constructive discharge.

More

Opinions Sept. 2, 2010

September 2, 2010

Indiana Court of Appeals
Conwell Construction v. Abbey Road Development, LLC, et al. (NFP)
49A05-0912-CV-741
Civil. Affirms trial court grant of permission to amend its counterclaim to assert a claim for actual damages.

More

Opinions Aug. 31, 2010

August 31, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Co.
10-1073
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of diversity suit against insurer. ACE had no duty to provide Hayes Lemmerz International’s lawyers with legal advice and didn’t breach its duty to defend by failing to advise HLI that its law firm wasn’t defending the suit properly.
More

Opinions Aug. 30, 2010

August 30, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jennifer K. Howard
09-3840
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of wire fraud and mail fraud. Holds that even if an indictment names particular victims, the government need not prove intent to harm those named victims. The government proved that Howard intended to defraud the scheme’s victims, and such intent was established by examining the circumstances of the scheme, not by who was specifically named in the indictment.
More

Opinions Aug. 27, 2010

August 27, 2010

Indiana Court of Appeals
Brian S. Adcock v. State of Indiana
47A01-0912-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and finding that Adcock is a repeat sexual offender. The trial court didn’t err in permitting the prosecutor to analogize the standard of proof to a jigsaw puzzle during voir dire or in allowing the state to amend the repeat sexual offender notice.

More

Opinions Aug. 26, 2010

August 26, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John M. Stephenson v. Bill Wilson, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison
09-2924
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Stephenson failed to carry his burden of proving prejudice, even on the premise that his counsel should have objected to the stun belt. The question of prejudice from Stephenson being required to wear the stun belt at the penalty hearing will require further consideration of the District Court on remand.
More

Opinions Aug. 25, 2010

August 25, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jorge Quintero, a/k/a Samuel Munoz, and Claudia Andrade Martinez
09-2715, 09-2788
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judges Rudy Lozano and James T. Moody.
Criminal. Dismisses Quintero’s appeal of his sentence after pleading guilty to charges related to a bank robbery and unlawful entering on waiver grounds. Affirms Martinez’s conviction and sentence for bank robbery and unlawfully remaining in the U.S. The jury instructions given at Martinez’s trial regarding aiding and abetting were correct statements of the law.
More

Opinions Aug. 24, 2010

August 24, 2010

Indiana Court of Appeals
Monty Rader v. State of Indiana
49A02-0907-CR-691
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress. The IP address used to log in to the monty20064 account was, on the dates in question, assigned to Rader’s home in Greencastle. Rejects Rader’s request that the court follow the precedent of the New Jersey Supreme Court and ignore the holding of the Indiana Supreme Court with regard to the issuance of investigatory subpoenas to third parties.

More

Opinions Aug. 23, 2010

August 23, 2010
Indiana Court of Appeals
Arthur Balls v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-12
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery and finding Balls is a habitual offender.
More

Opinions Aug. 20, 2010

August 20, 2010

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Torrey Bauer, David Certo, and Indiana Right to Life, Inc. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al.
09-2963
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms District court’s ruling that the state’s judicial canons are constitutional regarding whether judges can make public statements regarding controversial issues. The opinion recognizes a split among Circuits throughout the country on the issue. Also finds that a portion of the challenge involving the pre-2009 conduct code is unripe, rather than moot as the District court had found.

More

Opinions Aug. 19, 2010

August 19, 2010

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kari Heyser, et al. v. Noble Roman's, Inc., et al.
29A04-1002-PL-71
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment for Noble Roman’s Inc. and other defendants on Heyser and other franchisees’ claim for constructive fraud. The admission by the franchisees’ attorney that their fraud claims against the banks were based solely on allegedly fraudulent representations by Noble Roman’s, with whom the banks allegedly acted in conspiracy; and the franchisees were alleging actual fraud, not constructive fraud.

More
Page  << 41 42 43 >> 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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT