ILNews

Opinions April 21, 2011

April 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Tom George, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
94S00-1010-CQ-544
Certified question. The NCAA’s ticket-allocation process for championship sporting events – only refunding the face value and not a handling fee to unsuccessful applicants – is not an illegal lottery under Indiana law because no prize was awarded to those applicants who received the opportunity to purchase tickets. Where an event coordinator creates the primary market for event tickets, the fair-market value of the tickets is equal to their face value and there is no “prize.”  

Bradley J. Love v. Robert Rehfus, et al.
30S01-1004-CV-162
Civil. Reverses in whole the order granting summary judgment for the defendants and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The email that firefighter Love sent was constitutionally protected speech under the test set forth in Pickering and its progeny, and there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved in order to determine whether the township is liable for the fire chief’s actions. Fire Chief Rehfus fired Love because he believed the private email – which supported a political candidate – contained false statements of fact.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rebecca D. Kays v. State of Indiana
42A05-1007-CR-504
Criminal. Reverses order Kays pay restitution as part of her probation for Class B misdemeanor battery. The trial court didn’t adequately inquire into her ability to pay or the manner in which she was to pay. On remand, the trial court should revisit the documentation, if it exists, submitted as to the victim’s damages and determine whether the amount of restitution ordered reflects the amount actually paid by the victim.

Michael L. Alexander v. State of Indiana
71A04-1006-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony operating a motor vehicle after a lifetime suspension of driving privileges. Police inspection of BMV records doesn’t implicate the Fourth Amendment, so the police stop of Alexander based on the information in his driver’s record was permissible.

Charles R. Bilyeu v. Frani Bilyeu (NFP)
06A05-1006-DR-356
Domestic relation. Reverses order that Charles Bilyeu pay the attorney fees of his wife upon the dissolution of their marriage. Remands with instructions.

Scott F. Carbary v. Shawn Miller d/b/a SignificantCars.com (NFP)
49A02-1005-PL-582
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Shawn Miller on Miller’s suit to collect a commission. Awards Miller appellate attorney fees and remands for determination of the appellate attorney fees award.

A.C., et al., Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; D.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A05-1002-JC-154
Juvenile. Grants rehearing to clarify why In Re M.R. is distinguishable, directs the juvenile court to amend the participation degree, and affirms original opinion in all other respects.

Stephen C. Wood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1009-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

S.T.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A05-1009-JV-558
Juvenile. Affirms finding S.T.S. is a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class C felony burglary if committed by an adult.

Travis S. Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1009-CR-574
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony battery on a law enforcement officer resulting in bodily injury and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Eric A. Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1008-CR-389
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT