ILNews

Opinions Aug. 3, 2012

August 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
BKCAP, LLC, GRAYCAP, LLC, AND SWCAP, LLC v. Captec Franchise Trust 2000-1
11-2928, 11-3378
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey.
Civil. Affirms ruling in favor of the borrowers’ interpretation of the prepayment premium requirements in 12 loans involving restaurants and award of prejudgment interest to the borrowers. The borrowers’ position was supported by the evidence presented at trial, and the lender is not entitled to attorney fees.

Daryl Scruggs v. Carrier Corp.
11-3420
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Carrier in Scruggs’ suit for interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act after Carrier fired Scruggs for abusing FMLA leave. Carrier has shown that it held an “honest suspicion” that Scruggs was abusing his FMLA leave.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Veolia Water Indianapolis LLC, City of Indianapolis Dept. of Waterworks, and City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Ins. Co. and FCCI Ins. Co. a/s/o Ultra Steak, Inc. d/b/a Texas Roadhouse
49A04-1108-PL-412
Civil plenary. Reverses partial denial of city’s motion to dismiss and Veolia’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both defendants are entitled to common law immunity because the common law rule turns on the purpose for which the water is being used, not the underlying cause of the lack of water. The explicit language of the city’s contract with Veolia disavows any intent to create third-party beneficiaries.

Clair Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-914
Criminal. Affirms four convictions of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor following a jury trial.

Michael Nance v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1144
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft following a jury trial.

Michael L. Gaebler v. Janice (Gaebler) Bankert-Countryman (NFP)
49A04-1111-DR-630
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s order modifying Gaebler’s child support obligation for his two minor children.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT