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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT