ILNews

Opinions April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC
29A02-1201-PL-4
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

49A02-1203-MI-271
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)
45A04-1205-CT-278
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)
33A01-1204-DR-170
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)

49A02-1206-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Rickie B. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1206-CR-482
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)

34A02-1209-CR-769
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)
45A03-1205-CT-208
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)
21A04-1208-PL-434
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)
20A05-1203-PC-128
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)
34A02-1210-JT-867
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Andrew Ray Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1205-CR-243
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT