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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT