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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT