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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT