ILNews

Opinions Aug. 14, 2014

August 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Elliott D. Levin, as trustee in bankruptcy for Irwin Financial Corp. v. William I. Miller, et al.
12-3474
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms dismissal with respects to counts 1, 2, 4 and 5 that claim bank managers violated their fiduciary duties to Irwin because those claims are now owned by the FDIC.  Vacates dismissal of counts 3 – that managers allowed Irwin to pay dividends in amounts that left it short of capital - and 7 – that two of the managers breach their duties of care and loyalty – and and remands for further proceedings because those claims are categorized as direct claims that must be pursued by the bank, not the FDIC. Judge Hamilton concurs in result.

Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
13-2337
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms finding that Fortres Grand Corp. failed to state a claim under the traditional confusion or reverse confusion theory and that Warner Bros.’ use of the words “clean slate” was protected by the First Amendment.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael H. Kretschmer v. Bank of America, N.A.
20A05-1312-MF-600
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses the denial of Kretschmer’s motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of Bank of America. Finds that Kretschmer has demonstrated grounds for setting aside the entry of default judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(1) and (3) and has alleged a meritorious defense.

Amy L. Falatovics v. Imre L. Falatovics
46A04-1401-DR-20
Domestic relation. Reverses divorce decree and remands with instructions to include in the marital estate the husband’s interest in two parcels of real estate he owns as a joint tenant with his brother subject to a life estate in his mother. Husband’s interest in the real estate was improperly excluded because he has a present pecuniary interest in the properties.

Stephanie Lucas v. State of Indiana
03A01-1309-CR-389
Criminal. Reverses on interlocutory appeal the denial of Lucas’ motion to suppress evidence obtained in the course of a traffic stop. The traffic stop was more intrusive than authorized for a permissible investigatory stop because the police officer did not articulate a legitimate reason as to why he could not complete his investigation standing alongside Lucas’ vehicle instead of having her sit in his police vehicle. Judge Bradford concurs in result in a separate opinion.

Trent A. Burnworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1401-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony theft and finding that Burnworth is a habitual offender.

Arthur B. Greco, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1401-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felonies intimidation and escape, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Charles J. Dean v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1402-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Voluntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.C., Jr., M.C., Sr., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
84A01-1302-JT-51
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment following the termination of father’s parental rights.

Kyle J. Eckstein v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1312-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.S.T. & C.T. (Minor Children), and G.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1312-JT-603
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jason S. Aliff v. State of Indiana (NFP)

41A05-1401-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony escape.

Tremayne Terry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1072
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.V. (Minor Child) and M.V. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
45A03-1312-JT-502
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT