ILNews

Opinions Aug. 30, 2010

August 30, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday.
Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of: Anonymous
18S00-0902-DI-73
Discipline. Privately reprimands attorney for engaging in misconduct by improperly revealing information relating to the representation of a former client, a violation of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2).

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jennifer K. Howard
09-3840
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of wire fraud and mail fraud. Holds that even if an indictment names particular victims, the government need not prove intent to harm those named victims. The government proved that Howard intended to defraud the scheme’s victims, and such intent was established by examining the circumstances of the scheme, not by who was specifically named in the indictment.

Timothy L. Runyon v. Applied Extrusion Technologies Inc.
09-3015
U.S. District Court, Southern District Court of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney
Civil. Affirms judgment as a matter of law in Applied Extrusion’s favor in Runyon’s action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. There’s no evidence the company’s decision to fire Runyon was motivated by his age.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terry Gene Lay v. State of Indiana
10A01-1001-CR-17
Criminal. Affirms convictions of neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury as a Class B felony, neglect of a dependent resulting in death as a Class A felony, reckless homicide as a Class C felony. Lay waived the issue of marital privilege because he didn’t object during his wife’s testimony at trial concerning violation of the marital privilege. Evidence supports his wife voluntarily waived the privilege. There is also no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy in the case.

Alphonzo Fisher v. State of Indiana
10A01-1001-CR-21
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to discharge. The state has an affirmative duty to pursue prosecution of Fisher and the duty derives from a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The balance of the Barker factors under the facts of the case show Fisher’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Remands with instructions to dismiss the underlying action against Fisher.

James B. Perigo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A04-0911-PC-636
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Lake Hellene, Inc., v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, et al. (NFP)
49A04-0910-CV-557
Civil. Reverses partial summary judgment foreclosing the litigation of the “common enemy” defense for claims against Lake Hellene. Affirms refusal to grant partial summary judgment to Lake Hellene as to the applicability of a municipal drainage ordinance. Remands for further proceedings.

Dan Fry, et al. v. Wilma Sutherlin Hadley (NFP)
67A01-1002-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms order in favor of Hadley in her action for ejectment and against the Frys on their counterclaims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, slander, and interference with a contractual relationship.

Ernest Lansford, III v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (NFP)
71A03-1003-PL-142
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment for Allstate in a negligence action for property damages resulting from a vehicle collision.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.A.; H.P. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
45A03-1001-JT-80
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Carl Lee Gary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1004-CR-176
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of forgery as Class C felonies, dealing in a sawed-off shotgun as a Class D felony, and domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Richard L. Cripe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1002-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated appeal.

Reymond Barnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-738
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies robbery and criminal confinement.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT