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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT