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. 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