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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT