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

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT