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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT