Opinions Aug. 4, 2010

August 4, 2010
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

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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Jason T. Fabini v. Joanne M. Fabini (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting Jason Fabini’s motion to modify child support.

Edward Ray Kind v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?