Opinions Dec. 27, 2011

December 27, 2011
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)
Domestic relations. Affirms division of assets in dissolution decree.

Ronnie Major v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

David D. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Khristopher D. Harvey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

H & J Legacy Family Limited Partnership v. R.L.S. Developments, LLC, et al. (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony escape.

Anthony Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher W. Hovis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony assisting a criminal.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.