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

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT