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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT