ILNews

Opinions July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jill Treat, et al. v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac GMC Inc, et al.
10-3166
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William Lee.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Tom Kelley Buick and Kelley Automotive Group in the Treats’ suit under the Wage Payment Statute to recover unpaid wages. The Treats erroneously brought their claim under the Wage Payment Statute instead of the Wage Claims Statute.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mari Miller v. Glenda Owens, et al.
52A05-1012-CP-742
Civil plenary. Affirms order finding Waterford Place was not in contempt of the court’s garnishment order only garnishing $12.17 of Fabian Calisto’s weekly disposable earnings. The trial court was not precluded from reconsidering the legal reasoning underpinning its earlier garnishment orders, Waterford’s arguments were not precluded by offensive collateral estoppel, and the trial court didn’t err in denying Mari Miller’s requests for attorney fees.

K.D., et al. v. Adrianne Chambers, R.N., et al.
49A04-1010-CT-636
Civil tort. Reverses in part and affirms in part. The trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Daniel McCoy’s testimony based solely on his curriculum vitae without holding an Evidence Rule 702 hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence that mother Michelle Campbell suffered negligent infliction of emotional distress because that claim was not sufficiently pleaded. The trial court correctly excluded the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of separate breaches of the standard of care not presented to the medical review panel, but because one of those claimed breaches is within the scope of their submission to the review panel, the COA reverses in part. Remands for further proceedings.

Larry Lefler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1007-CR-479
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

William Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1010-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Matthew N. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1011-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms convictions of criminal recklessness as a Class C felony and Class D felony auto theft.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.P., et al.; D.P. v. IDCS (NFP)
82A04-1012-JT-807
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Dallas Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-PC-801
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for habeas corpus.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT