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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT