ILNews

Opinions Aug. 17, 2011

August 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lisa Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC and Chance Felling
10-2744
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms grant of Avery Drei and Felling’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Hicks’ vacation pay claim and a portion of their similar motion on her overtime pay claim. Evidence shows that Hicks and Felling had an agreement that Hicks would not earn vacation pay until after being employed for one year; her employment ended before she reached her one-year anniversary. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’ motion in limine. Affirms in all other respects.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amy Gulbranson v. State of Indiana
71A05-1103-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony assisting a criminal. Gulbranson’s reliance on authority interpreting prior versions of Ind. Code 35-44-3-2 is misplaced.

C.S. v. State of Indiana
67A01-1101-JS-19
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication as a delinquent child for violating the compulsory school attendance law, a status offense. There was insufficient evidence that C.S. is in need of care, treatment, or rehabilitation, which is a required element in order to be adjudicated.

Randall Thomas Ford v. Debra Ann Ford
07A01-1012-DR-601
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s conclusion that Randall Ford’s employer-funded health benefit account constitutes a marital asset subject to division, but reverses the judgment regarding valuation of the account. Although there are possibilities that might impact the valuation of the account, they do not alter the fact that that Randall does have an immediately existing right to present enjoyment of the account. Remands with instructions to conduct a hearing at which the value of the account as a divisible marital asset may be determined.

Outboard Boating Club of Evansville, Inc., et al. v. Indiana State Dept. of Health
82A01-1102-PL-52
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of the health department’s motion to dismiss the boating clubs’ action for declaratory judgment that the health department had no jurisdiction to regulate the clubs’ facilities. The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the clubs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Joshua Farmer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1012-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug.

Tat-Yik Jarvis Ka and Amanda Beth Ka v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)

49A02-1103-CT-188
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis on the Kas’ suit for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass and nuisance after sewage from a city pipe backed up into their home.

Thomas Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A04-1101-CR-13
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David G. Carmichael v. Candace (Carmichael) Ballard (NFP)
52A05-1012-DR-770
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Carmichael’s motion for relief from judgment.

Kevin R. Franklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1012-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license, and Class D felony criminal recklessness.

N.D. v. T.D. (NFP)
71A03-1011-DR-648
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s ruling regarding custody, provisional child support, tax exemption, attorney fees, and bias. Remands for further consideration regarding the father’s pension.

Base Alston-Butler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony robbery.

Beverly Jinkins v. Jet Credit Union (NFP)
49A02-1006-PL-666
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment for Jet Credit Union on Jinkins’ counterclaims alleging breach of contract and various tort claims. Affirms grant of Jet’s motion to strike Jinkins’ untimely response.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of: S.C., et al.; D.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A02-1102-JT-203
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Frontier Insurance Co. and Midwest Bonding, Inc. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1102-CR-89
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to correct error challenging an order for forfeiture of a bond and the imposition of late surrender fees.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT