ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2014

August 20, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Robin Allman, et al. v. Kevin Smith, et al.
14-1792
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Stays the District Court proceedings against both the Anderson mayor and the city of Anderson. The court denied summary judgment in favor of Smith with respect to two plaintiffs’ claims that they were fired from their city jobs because of their political affiliations and refused to grant Smith’s request for stay pending appeal or the city’s motion for summary judgment and request for a stay. The doctrine of “pendent appellate jurisdiction” allows the city to appeal the denial of the stay.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc. and Roncelli, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., Wilson Iron Works, Inc., Johnson Carpet, Inc., d/b/a Johnson Commercial Interiors
64A03-1308-PL-318
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Fostcorp Heating and Cooling and other appellees on various breach of contract claims and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens stemming from the construction of a movie theatre. Roncelli’s appeal was timely filed and the judgments are supported by the findings. It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award attorney fees, so reverses those fees in favor of the appellees.

Kindred Nursing Centers, d/b/a Royal Oaks Health Care and Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Carrie Etta McGoffney
84A04-1402-MI-56
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Royal Oak’s motion for summary judgment in a proposed medical malpractice complaint. The Journey’s Account Statute applies to revive the complaint.

Westport Homes, Inc. v. Greg Penley and Pam Penley (NFP)
30A01-1403-SC-120
Small claim. Reverses small claims judgment in favor of the Penleys over a breach of contract claim involving a refrigerator. Remands with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Westport.

David Johnson and Ieva S. Johnson and Eva G. Sanders and Joseph K. and Michelle Yeary v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management and Town of Whitestown (NFP)
06A05-1310-PL-506
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of the appellants’ petition for judicial review.

Larry Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Simone Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1401-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jason G. Squier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1311-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Eric J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-449
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Citi Capital Financial LLC v. Huntington National Bank (NFP)
29A02-1307-PL-643
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Huntington in a lien property dispute between it and Citi Capital.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of, A.C., Minor Child, and A.C., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1402-JT-89
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-378
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms reversal of Brummett’s convictions for child molesting due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Rayshawn Winbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1401-PC-32
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT