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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT