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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT