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. 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