ILNews

Opinions Feb. 13, 2014

February 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity- Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., and Nathan Cravens
54S01-1303-CT-161
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment for the campus fraternity but affirms summary judgment for the college and national fraternity organization in the personal injury action brought by a fraternity pledge seeking damages for injuries sustained in an incident at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. Holds that the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Wabash College and the national fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., are each entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, but that as to the local fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity – Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, there remain genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Justice Rucker concurs in part and dissents in part. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana, acting on behalf of the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. International Business Machines Corporation
49A02-1211-PL-875
Civil plenary. Reverses finding that there was no material breach by IBM, but affirms award of $40 million in assignment fees and $9,510,795 in equipment fees to IBM. Affirms the trial court’s denial of deferred fees to IBM, reverses the trial court’s award of $2,570,621 in early termination close out payments and $10,632,333 in prejudgment interest to IBM, and remands the case to the trial court to determine the amount of fees IBM is entitled to for Change Orders 119 and 133. Remands the case to the trial court to determine the state’s damages for IBM’s material breach of the contract and to offset any damages awarded to IBM. Judge Friedlander concurs in part and dissents in part.

Wendy Thompson v. State of Indiana
61A01-1305-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions and seven-year consecutive sentence for four counts of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 causing serious bodily injury. This Class D felony is a “crime of violence” within the meaning of I.C. 35-5-1-2(a), so her sentence does not exceed the maximum allowable under the consecutive-sentencing statute. Finds her sentence appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her character.

Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana
49A02-1304-CR-386
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Holds the challenged portion of Indiana’s public intoxication statute is unconstitutionally vague as it neither requires that a defendant specifically intended to annoy another, nor does it employ an objective standard to assess whether a defendant’s conduct would be annoying to a reasonable person. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Larry Edward Flick v. Jewell Reuter
47A01-1303-PL-135
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Reuter on claims of adverse possession, prescriptive easement and trespass. Reuter is unable to prove she paid taxes on the land since 1988. Affirms awarding her nearly $30,000 in damages caused by Flick in his attempts to evict her from the land he purchased in a foreclosure sale.

Detrick L. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1309-CR-455
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Duane Fry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Elgin Lamont Hoyle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1307-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Andrew T. Stout v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1305-CR-222
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Wabash County Hospital Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Wabash County Hospital and Carole Riley v. Hai Lee (NFP)
85A04-1306-CT-291
Civil tort. Affirms denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Charles Poling v. Property Owners Insurance Company (NFP)
27A02-1307-PL-585
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Poling’s request to amend his complaint for a second time and dismissal of the Poling’s lawsuit.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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