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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT