ILNews

Opinions Dec. 6, 2010

December 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Brian D. Grigsby v. Ray LaHood, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the Department of Transportation in his suit claiming he wasn’t hired because of his Native American heritage. Grigsby was not qualified for any of the positions he applied for.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rex E. Breeden Revocable Trust v. Rebecca Jane Hoffmeister-Repp
03A04-1003-CT-185
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Hoffmeister-Repp on the trust’s complaint for rescission and/or damages of an agreement to purchase Hoffmeister-Repp’s residence. Concludes that exception nine - transfers to a living trust - enacted in I.C. § 32-21-5-1(9) only applies when the transfer occurs between a seller and the seller’s own living trust. Therefore, Hoffmeister-Repp was required to comply with the statute and to complete a disclosure form. Finds the trust’s fraud claim fails and there is insufficient designated evidence to support a finding of mutual mistake.

Charles E. Green v. State of Indiana
49A05-1001-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction. Based on the evidence, a trier of fact could reasonably infer that Green murdered the victim, or at the very least, he aided, induced or caused James Townsend to murder her. Also, Jury Instruction 21(F) as a whole was not misleading.

Peggy J. Rider and James R. Rider v. Larry L. McCamment, et al.
16A01-1004-CT-180
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for McCamment as landowner because Peggy Rider’s negligence claim against him fails as a matter of law. Reverses summary judgment for independent contractor Lee. Although Lee exercised control over the premises, the facts designated aren’t sufficient to conclude whether Rider was rightfully on the premises and whether she was a foreseeable visitor. Judge Kirsch concurs in part and dissents in part.

Northeast Civic Association, Inc. et al. v. Gloria J. Beard, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1003-PL-470
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of defendants Gloria J. Beard and others in Northeast Civil Association’s verified compliant to quiet title and for damages.

Guillermo Toledo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1006-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as a Class B felony, and to being a habitual controlled substance offender.

Quantita L. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-581
Criminal. Reverses order Jackson serve an executed sentence following her guilty plea to Class C felony fraud on a financial institution. Remands with instructions.

Ira James Washington, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-151
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony attempted aggravated battery and Class D felony battery.

Patrick T. Tolbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies robbery and criminal confinement.

Stephen Ray Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1003-CR-161
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Barry Wanner v. Jill Hutchcroft (NFP)
79A02-1004-DR-467
Domestic relation. Affirms order Wanner pay Hutchcroft more than $37,000 to compensate her for a tax liability assumed when she liquidated part of his TIAA-CREF retirement account.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied seven transfers for the week ending Dec. 3.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT