ILNews

Opinions Aug. 25, 2011

August 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Ernest R. Snow
10-2031
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry McKinney.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence of gun found on Snow after he was pulled over on suspicion of a burglary attempt and ordered out of his car for a protective pat down. Concludes that police do not require additional information suggesting that a suspect might be armed before they may conduct a protective frisk of someone they reasonably suspect of being a burglar.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Michael H. Haury v. Bruce Lemmon, et al.
11-2148
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L Miller Jr.
Civil. Reverses denial by District Court to proceed as a pauper on the ground that Haury had accumulated three strikes for the dismissal of three prior lawsuits. Only two of the cases named by the District Court warrant strikes under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Grants Haury’s motion and remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Margarita Aguirre v. State of Indiana
49A05-1101-CR-36
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The state did not present any evidence that Aguirre used force or “made threatening or violent actions” to contribute to the struggle with the police officer. Judge Baker dissents.

S.S. LLC  v. Review Board and D.H.
93A02-1101-EX-56
Agency appeal. Affirms decision in favor of D.H. on her claim for unemployment benefits. S.S. merely alleged that D.H. voluntarily resigned. The review board found otherwise and the COA declines to reweigh the evidence. Judge Crone concurs in separate opinion.

Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Christopher Jones, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Sarah Jones, deceased

53A01-1012-PL-669
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment and subsequent entry of declaratory judgment against Argonaut Insurance and in favor of Jones after Monroe County Sheriff’s Deputy Sarah Jones was killed while on duty. The trial court correctly concluded as a matter of law that there was no question of material fact and that Jones was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether Deputy Jones was using her patrol car and that her injuries and death resulted from her use of the police car.  

John Fiederlein, M.D. v. Alex Boutselis, M.D. and Steve Jones, M.D.
79A04-1010-PL-632
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part. Affirms summary judgment for the defendants as to Fiederlein’s claims of breach of contract, fraudulent interference with employment relationship, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The trial court properly concluded that there was no evidence to support Fiederlein’s contention that his negotiations would have been conducted differently if a letter hadn’t been sent. The trial court erred when it denied Fiederlein’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendants’ counterclaim for the repayment of $814,935 distribution due to unjust enrichment. The trial court erred when it denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Fiederlein’s claim of unjust enrichment regarding the capital account refunds.

Michael D. Slaton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A05-1012-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony robbery and two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.W., et al.; A.W. v. IDCS (NFP)

54A01-1102-JT-77
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jatun Combs v. State of Indiana (NFP)

46A03-1006-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony possession with intent to deliver cocaine.

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Governmental Interinsurance Exchange (NFP)
66A04-1101-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Governmental Interinsurance Exchange on the issue of notice.

Ibad U. Ansari v. Home Bank S.B. (NFP)
55A01-1012-CC-641
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Home Bank on a suit alleging default on promissory notes.

Jeremy K. Hiday v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1102-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Linda S. Wetzel v. John E. Wetzel (NFP)
29A02-1008-DR-968
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying the weekly child support obligation of John Wetzel to $0.
 
Keith Nemer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1012-CR-800
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

O&F Properties, Inc. v. Timothy A. Mills, et al. (NFP)

82A01-1101-PL-11
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment to defendant Orson Oliver in O & F’s breach of contract suit.

Jerome Wilkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A04-1101-CR-47
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT