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

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT