Opinions Aug. 20, 2014

August 20, 2014
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.
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
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
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)
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)
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of the appellants’ petition for judicial review.

Larry Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Simone Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jason G. Squier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Eric J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

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

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit