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

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