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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT