ILNews

Opinions Aug. 16, 2011

August 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Blanca Gomez and Joan Wagner-Barnett v. St. Vincent Health Inc.
10-2379
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s decision to not certify the class, not to award statutory penalties, and the amount of damages awarded to Barnett in the proposed class action seeking damages from and statutory penalties against St. Vincent for violating the notice provisions regarding extending health care coverage after ending employment. The District Court didn’t err in awarding Barnett $396 in damages pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1132(c)(1) or in finding the proposed counsel inadequate to represent the class.

Today’s opinions:
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lady Di’s, Inc. v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc., and ILD Telecomunications, doing business as ILD Teleservices, Inc.
10-3903
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for class certification and grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment and statutory deception claims, holding Indiana “anti-cramming” regulation does not apply to the defendants because they are not telephone companies and did not act in this case as billing agents for telephone companies.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gordon B. Dempsey v. Dept. of Metropolitan Development
49A02-1102-MI-165
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Dempsey’s appeal, holding that because he paid a fine under protest to avoid a tax sale, his appeal is not moot. Remands to the trial court with instructions that it determine whether a fine was warranted.

Murat Temple Association, Inc. v. Live Nation Worldwide, et al.
49A02-1008-PL-952
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of Murat Temple Association’s claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship.

Harrion Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Jeffrey L. Turnmire v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1101-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

Steven Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1326
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Kurt St. Angelo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1105-IF-189
Infraction. Affirms trial court’s judgment that St. Angelo committed a Class C infraction of speeding.

Michael S. Fahlbeck v. Bryan Bucklen, et al. (NFP)
20A03-1102-PL-54
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s award of attorney fees to Bucklen, et. al., holding that Fahlbeck waived his argument on appeal because it was not properly asserted at the trial court level.

Winfred Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1103-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Jose Cruz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1343
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Johnny Joe Olinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
83A01-1012-CR-668
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Kenny Mong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1012-CR-662
Criminal. Reverses sentence for two counts Class A felony dealing in cocaine, finding the sentence is inappropriate in light of the offense and character of the offender and that the trial court’s statements at sentencing conflicted with the sentence imposed.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.D.; H.D. and D.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
40A05-1101-JT-17
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Cartier D. Tasby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1010-CR-710
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony residential entry, Class D felony theft, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Purl Robert Silk III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1008-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s denial of Silk’s petition to file a belated notice of appeal, holding that Silk was not diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT