ILNews

Opinions Dec. 19, 2011

December 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Capitol Construction Services, Inc. v. Amy Gray, as Personal Rep. of the Estateof Clinton Gray and All One, Inc.
49A04-1005-CT-289
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Gray’s estate, holding that per terms of the contract, Capitol Construction was obligated to provide fall protection for all subcontractors.

Smith Barney v. StoneMor Operating LLC, et al.
41A04-1103-MF-96
Mortgage foreclosure. On petition for rehearing from Smith Barney, affirms original opinion in Smith Barney v. StoneMor Operating LLC, 953 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) and clarifies original analysis.

Adrian Hulse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1105-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery.

City of Muncie v. Stanley Benford (NFP)
18A02-1011-MI-1281
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s order awarding damages to Benford, holding the court lacked authority to enter the order.

Erie Ins. Exchange as Subrogee of Welch & Wilson Properties, LLC, d/b/a Hammons Storage and Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co. v. 500 Rangeline Rd., LLC and HSM Development, Inc. (NFP)
73A05-1104-PL-165
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal from Erie, holding that the entry of partial summary judgment that  Erie appeals is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, and therefore the appeals court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Erie’s appeal.

Boyer Excavating Corp. v. Shook Construction and Ball State University Board of Trustees (NFP)
18A02-1007-PL-834
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s order in favor of Shook Construction and Ball State University Board of Trustees, concluding that the court did not err in applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., s/b/m Bank One, N.A. v. Mike S. Forbing, Successor Trustee of the Jack D. Forbing Revocable Trust (NFP)
02A05-1107-MI-395
Miscellaneous. Affirms Allen Circuit Court’s denial of motion to set aside trial court’s order releasing surplus funds from the sale of real estate.

Magnolia Health Systems v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Emma J. Johnson (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-586
Civil. Affirms decision from Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board in favor of Johnson.

Roger Ordonez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-380
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony failure to stop after operating while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.
 
In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.B., D.G., and C.W.; and D.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1105-JT-347
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT