ILNews

Opinions Aug. 4, 2010

August 4, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Wells Fargo Insurance v. Bruce A. Land

48A02-0911-CV-1099
Civil. Affirms Land is entitled to commission on all of his 2005 crop-year policies. By Feb. 2, 2006, the date of Land’s resignation, the sales had been consummated, and his right to the 2005 crop-year commissions had fully accrued, subject only to receipt of the premium payments. The trial court erred by not deducting the amount Land received as commission from JS Crop for his 2005 crop-insurance sales and by allowing him to keep $6,000 paid to him in draw in 2006 because it would be a windfall he’s not entitled to. Land is entitled to attorney fees and appellate attorney fees attributable to his recovery of unpaid wages. Remands with instructions.

Justin Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1001-CR-6
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, two counts of Class C felony robbery, Class C felony attempted robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Aaron D. Ellis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1001-CR-56
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Jason T. Fabini v. Joanne M. Fabini (NFP)
02A03-1003-DR-152
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting Jason Fabini’s motion to modify child support.

Edward Ray Kind v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1003-CR-291
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, one count of Class A felony possession of cocaine, and one count of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Robert L. Terry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-993
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the trial court for clarification on whether the trial court’s order to suspended Terry’s driving privileges for a fixed period of two years and 90 days was contrary to law.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT