ILNews

Opinions July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Indiana Department of Transportation
12-3187
Civil/agency action. Affirms the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Corps of Engineers, holding that the Corps evaluated all of the wetland-protection factors required in its approval of a Clean Water Act permit to construct a section of Interstate 69 about 25 miles south of Bloomington.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Weinreb v. Fannie Mae
49A04-1211-PL-587
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to Fannie Mae for $1.81 million. Weinreb, a real estate investor who was held liable for the amount, appealed the summary judgment on the grounds that the implementation of the loan documents was ambiguous; the prepayment premium is unenforceable; and the guaranty along with the loan documents are unenforceable because of unconscionability. The COA finds no ambiguity in either the language or implementation of the documents. It also concludes the prepayment premium is enforceable as a matter of law because it fairly compensates Fannie Mae for lost interest. Finally, the court rules Weinreb was not in a position of weakness or unequal bargaining power when negotiating the loan so the guaranty and the loan documents are not unconscionable.   

Marshall Banter v. Joshua Sheets
34A05-1212-CT-629
Civil tort. Reverses and remands for a new trial in a claim arising from an automobile crash. The panel held that a jury that assigned 70 percent fault to Marshall Banter, a motorist rear-ended in an auto accident, was given incorrect instructions and misapplied the Indiana Comparative Fault Act. The panel further held that Joshua Sheets conceded liability and therefore the jury at a new trial shall only determine Banter’s damages.

The Cain Family Farm, L.P., and The Cain Family Farm, LLC, v. Schrader Real Estate & Auction Company, Inc., Charles O. Drerup, Antlers Ridge, LLC, and Candace J. Somerlott

57A03-1209-PL-394
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling validating the purchase agreements on property sold at auction, agreeing with trial court rulings that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Candace Somerlot’s apparent authority to bind the LLC when she executed purchase agreements, and that the trial court correctly interpreted the Indiana Business Flexibility Act, I.C. 23-18-3-1.1(b).

William Chavers v. State of Indiana

49A04-1211-CR-580
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Finds that Chavers failed to show he made an honest and reasonable mistake of fact that would have negated his culpability for violating a no-contact order. Concludes a “reasonable person” would have attempted to verify that both protective orders issued from Marion Superior Court 21 and Court 16 had been vacated before going to the victim’s residence. However, in his dissent, Judge John Baker argues the confusion over the two separate orders could have caused “an average person” to easily make a mistake regarding the status of the protective orders.

Jeramie Murdock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1210-CR-880
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence and convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Jeffrey Nemcek v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1210-CR-549
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B misdemeanor possession of a switchblade knife.

Scott Banfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A04-1210-IF-536
Infraction. Affirms bench trial verdict against Scott Banfield and fine of $35.50 plus court costs for a speeding ticket.

Oscar Guillen, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1204-CR-157
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony intimidation and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Patrick Wiese v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-595
Criminal/rehearing. Reaffirms trial court denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a home search.

Eric M. Kyner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-PC-124
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from his designation as a sexually violent predator and placement on parole, which was revoked after a violation.

Christopher McCaster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A04-1212-CR-644
Criminal. Affirms habitual-offender sentence enhancement to a conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to deal in cocaine or a narcotic drug.

Romell Colvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1212-CR-576
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of dealing in marijuana.

Nicholas Joseph Bray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1210-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Barbara Laskowski v. Amer Kazi, M.D. (NFP)
20A03-1205-PL-235
Civil plenary/medical malpractice. A majority of Judge Rudolph Pyle III and Chief Judge Margret Robb affirms summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Judge Melissa May dissents.

Jim A. Edsall v. Benson, Pantello, Morris, James & Logan (NFP)
02A05-1210-SC-508
Small claims. Affirms judgment against Jim Edsall for $981.31 in unpaid legal fees.

Kenneth Horton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-1036
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation on the suspended portion of a sentence for Class B felony rape.

Delford W. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1209-CR-401
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony sexual battery and remands to the trial court to enter a conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery and resentence Jones accordingly.

Susan Berg v. Wanda Peters Rice a/k/a Wanda Coleman (NFP)
40A04-1210-SC-530
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Wanda Peters Rice a/k/a Wanda Coleman in a land contract dispute.

Melvin Lee Hayes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Remands to the trial court to recalculate credit for time served on convictions of Class D felony counts of possession of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine and theft.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.


 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT