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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT