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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT