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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT