ILNews

Opinions Feb. 14, 2011

February 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday.
Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Heather McClure O'Farrell
29S00-0902-DI-76
Discipline. Publicly reprimands O’Farrell for engaging in misconduct by making agreements for and charging unreasonable fees in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a). She violated the rule by including an improper nonrefundability provision in her flat fee agreements and by charging and collecting flat fees that were nonrefundable regardless of the circumstances. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Rucker dissent as to the sanction, finding a period of suspension without automatic reinstatement necessary for the protection of clients.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cynthia Kartman, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al.
09-1725
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses District Court ruling that a class claim for injunctive relief could proceed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and certification of a class to determine whether State Farm should be required to re-inspect policyholders’ roofs pursuant to a uniform and objective standard. There is no contract or tort-based duty requiring the insurer to use a particular standard for assessing hail damage. Also, the requested injunction is neither appropriate nor final.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ryan J. Goens v. State of Indiana
41A01-1006-CR-277
Criminal. Reverses denial of Goens’ motion to suppress. The traffic stop that resulted in his arrest for driving while intoxicated wasn’t supported by reasonable suspicion.

DBL Axel, LLC v. LaSalle Bank National Association, et al.
15A01-1003-PL-205
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing on the issue of whether the trial court’s order directing turnover of funds in favor of LaSalle Bank violated DBL’s due process rights to the extent that it had not been determined whether DBL was still in possession of the funds at the time the trial court issued the order. Holds that, where in question, the court must first make a factual determination as to the whereabouts of the property. Vacates original opinion, reverses, and remands.

Jeremy James Lahr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, one count of Class D felony fondling in the presence of a minor, and one count of Class D felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors.

Charles Summers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation and reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery. Remands for trial court to vacate battery conviction.

Jeruan L. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1006-CR-368
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael P. Singh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1007-CR-532
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Sandra McDaniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1005-CR-264
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-708
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct.

Auditor of Clark Ct., et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (NFP)
10A05-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment for JP Morgan Chase on the county’s complaint seeking recovery of penalties that the IRS had assessed against it for Chase’s refusal to honor the electronic funds transfer payment requests. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Baker concurs in result.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers and denied 34 for the week ending Feb. 11, 2011.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT