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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT