ILNews

Opinions Dec. 27, 2011

December 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
ATA Airlines Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
11-1382, 11-1492
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young
Civil. Reverses $66 million jury award in favor of ATA against FedEx for breach of contract. ATA’s breach of contract claim should never have been permitted to go to trial because the letter agreement between the two parties was not an enforceable contract. In addition, ATA’s expert’s testimony on regression analysis never should have been allowed to be put before a jury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clayton C. Franchville v. Dyanne R. Franchville (NFP)
49A04-1011-DR-777
Domestic relations. Affirms division of assets in dissolution decree.

Ronnie Major v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

David D. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-376
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Khristopher D. Harvey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1101-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

H & J Legacy Family Limited Partnership v. R.L.S. Developments, LLC, et al. (NFP)
57A03-1105-PL-185
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court conclusion that H & J had properly pleaded a fraudulent transfer claim only as to the mortgage on the 620 Westgate property and that the mortgage was not a fraudulent transfer. Affirms findings regarding RLS’s ownership of real estate assets.

Mark A. Conley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A04-1104-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony escape.

Anthony Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1011-CR-1182
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 grams of alcohol.

David Leroy Hale v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1106-PC-617
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher W. Hovis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1011-CR-613
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony assisting a criminal.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT