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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT