Opinions April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Marsh Supermarkets. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marsh damages based on Roche’s rental obligation under the 18-year term of the sublease after Roche terminated it over a subordination non-disturbance and attornment agreement. Judge Crone dissents.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

Miscellaneous. Grants state’s petition for rehearing but still concludes the trial court abused its discretion by denying Curtis’ motion for relief from judgment. Finds that where the underlying offense actually charged is fraud and not theft or conversion, there is no predicate for forfeiture.

Daniel G. Suber & Associates v. Edward Smith (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Smith’s motion to enforce an equitable lien and the award of attorney fees. Denies Smith’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Edward E. Wroblewski v. Linda M. (Wroblewski) Cain (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms judgment issued in favor of Linda Cain resolving various petitions and motions related to the post-secondary education component of the parties’ child support obligations.

Aaron Ingle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Rickie B. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Charles Dunmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Trivest Partnership, L.P. v. James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Trivest Partner’s motion for attorney fees against Gagan, Wittlinger, Allen and Deutsch.

Fayette County Board of Commissioners v. Howard Price (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the board of commissioner’s motion for summary judgment after the court concluded that the board’s decision not to reappointment Price as director of highway operations was a quasi-judicial decision that is subject to judicial review.

Baldemar Lopez Saldana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to dismiss Saldana’s appeal for relief from a ruling entered against him.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: W.S.; B.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Andrew Ray Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park and Class D felony unlawful possession of a hypodermic needle.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues