ILNews

Opinions Aug. 23, 2012

August 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
David H. Swanson v. United States of America
11-2338
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms denial of Swanson’s 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 petition, in which Swanson alleged his trial counsel abandoned a poorly developed but winning objection at sentencing that justifies a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Swanson doesn’t challenge his appellate counsel’s effectiveness, and because trial counsel raised the objection in a sentencing memorandum and never withdrew it, his performance was not objectively deficient.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Konrad Motor and Welder Service, Inc., Konrad Lambrecht, and Sharon Lambrecht v. Magnetech Industrial Services, Inc.
45A04-1203-CC-109
Civil collection. Reverses summary judgment for Magnetech and piercing Konrad Electric’s corporate veil because there are genuine issues of material fact. Affirms summary judgment for Magnetch on whether Konrad Motor and Welder Service is the alter ego of Konrad Electric. Remands for determination whether Konrad Electric’s corporate veil should be pierced and liability imposed upon the Lambrechts. If pierced, Konrad and Sharon Lambrecht may be held individually liable. Judge Crone concurs in part and dissents in part.

Arnie Cook v. Greeno Insurance, Inc., and Carl Greeno, Jr. (NFP)
34A02-1203-PL-199
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Greeno Insurance Inc. in Cook’s action against Greeno Insurance and Greeno Jr. alleging interference with a business relationship and breach of fiduciary duty.

Krista C. (Wilson) Williams v. Philip S. Wilson (NFP)
41A01-1111-DR-541
Domestic relation. Remands for trial court to reconsider its decision regarding the timing of supervised visitation and affirms in all other respects.

Brian C. Hostetler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A05-1112-CR-659
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT