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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT