ILNews

Opinions Aug. 19, 2010

August 19, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kari Heyser, et al. v. Noble Roman's, Inc., et al.
29A04-1002-PL-71
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment for Noble Roman’s Inc. and other defendants on Heyser and other franchisees’ claim for constructive fraud. The admission by the franchisees’ attorney that their fraud claims against the banks were based solely on allegedly fraudulent representations by Noble Roman’s, with whom the banks allegedly acted in conspiracy; and the franchisees were alleging actual fraud, not constructive fraud.

Jacqueline Babbitt v. Indiana State Police Trooper Officer E. Lamar Helmuth, in his official capacity (NFP)
71A05-0911-CV-646
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Babbitt’s complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).

Grante Ficklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Denise Diggins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Midwest Psychological Center, Inc., and Dr. Shelvy Keglar v. Sylvia Funk, et al. (NFP)

49A05-0910-CV-586
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Funk and other employees or agents of the Indiana State Department of Administration and/or the Division of Disability, Aging, and Rehabilitative Services, Disability Determination Bureau in Midwest’s complaint after not being selected for a bid for a state psychological service contract.

Leroy N. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1002-CR-79
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony murder, Class B felony conspiracy to commit arson, two counts of Class B felony arson, Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Class D felony intimidation.

TBS Development LLC, et al. v. Central Bank & Trust Co. (NFP)
15A01-0911-CV-540
Civil. Affirms finding TBS and other defendants committed fraud, fraud on a financial institution, conversion, and breach of contract, and award of treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Darby Hape v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A05-1003-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for jail-time credit.

Taron Raphael Momon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-0912-CR-598
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

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