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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT