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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT