ILNews

Opinions Jan. 9, 2014

January 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Wolf's Marine, Inc. v. Dev Brar
29A02-1303-SC-293
Small claim. Reverses denial of Wolf’s Marine’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Dr. Dev Brar. The trial court incorrectly determined that personal jurisdiction over Wolf’s existed in Indiana, and it should have granted the company’s motion to dismiss.

Joel Bowden, Ruby Bowden, Golden Companies, Inc., and Golden Purchasing and Staffing, Inc. v. E.J. Agnew and Golden-AGI, LLC
49A05-1301-PL-23
Civil plenary. Affirms determination that the Bowdens were subject in their individual capacities to the personal jurisdiction of Indiana courts. Holds Agnew’s expert’s testimony was admissible and the trial court did not err in relying on it to award Agnew damages. The Bowdens’ wrongful failure to distribute net revenue in accordance with the 50/50 agreement with Agnew constitutes failure to pay a debt, not criminal conversion, so Agnew is not entitled to treble damages. Remands for correction of the judgment to award damages in the amount of $1,754,278.

James Broxton v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Department of Indiana Workforce Development, and Sodexo
93A02-1301-EX-79
Agency action. Affirms denial of Broxton’s request for unemployment benefits. The review board did not err when it denied unemployment benefits to Broxton pursuant to the provisions of Indiana Code 22-4-3-5.

Jeremy D. Mohr v. Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust and Virginia B. Smith, as Trustee of the Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust
43A03-1306-CT-214
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the trust and Smith in Mohr’s suit seeking damages for serious injuries when one of the two trees supporting a hammock he laid in fell on him and a companion. He was on Smith’s property without her knowledge, permission or invitation.

Steven S. Satterly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1305-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms order Satterly serve portions of his suspended sentences in two causes.

Anthony A. Outlaw, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1305-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Anita Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1301-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Jayson Chad-Allen George v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1304-CR-149
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 10-year sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement and Class D felony strangulation.

Timothy L. Sanders, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1304-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT