Opinions July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of: Steve L. Brejensky
Discipline. Imposes at least one-year suspension without automatic reinstatement based on Brejensky’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion and lack of remorse. He may be reinstated only after proving his remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

In the Matter of: Patrick H. Stern
Discipline. Suspends Stern for at least 18-months without automatic reinstatement  for  failing to provide competent representation, representing clients with conflicting interests, asserting frivolous legal positions and engaging in deceptive practices with a court and the Disciplinary Commission.  Requires Stern to undergo a reinstatement proceeding before resuming practice. Justice David dissents regarding the discipline imposed, believing it is insufficient.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Somerville Auto Transport Service, Inc. and Robert Souza v. Automotive Finance Corporation
Civil collection.  Affirms orders placing the cause of action on the active docket and granting summary judgment in favor of Automotive Finance Corp against Somerville and Souza on an outstanding loan owed to AFC.  Finds trial court could place case back on docket  based on T.R. 60(A) after it had previously dismissed it with prejudiced, and finds that AFC provided sufficient evidence to show it reasonably believed Robson Merenciano was an agent of the dealership for purpose of purchasing vehicles using Somerville’s line of credit.

Charlotte Wiggins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Robin Shannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

David Wickizer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?