Opinions Aug. 10, 2012

August 10, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
HDNET LLC v. North American Boxing Council
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands trial court grant of partial summary judgment in favor of North American Boxing Council, finding the grant of summary judgment was erroneous as a matter of law as it pertains to the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and that the Boxing Council’s civil conversion claim doesn’t fall within the criminal law exception to the IUTSA’s preemption provision.

Teresa A. Houser, Personal Rep. of the Est. of Anonymous Physician, Deceased v. Stacy Kaufman, C.K., and Brent Kaufman; Teresa A. Houser, Personal Rep. v. Stacy Kaufman, et al.
Miscellaneous/estate. Affirms denial of the estate’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice suit, holding that the two-year statute of limitations in medical malpractice is unconstitutional in cases where a plaintiff does not know within that period about a potential act of malpractice. Affirms summary judgment for the estate with respect to Dr. K. owing no duty of care to C.K., the child of Stacy Kaufman.

Daniel Joseph Sheets v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Ronald Graham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms concurrent sentences totaling 30 years for conviction on charges related to a shooting during a drug deal.

The Estate of Rose Graves v. Anonymous Nursing Home (NFP)
Civil tort. On rehearing, reaffirms trial court order dismissing the estate’s action.



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?