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

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT