ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark McCleskey, trustee, et al. v. DLF Construction Inc., an Indiana corporation
11-1826
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms finding that the construction company, as employer, had to contribute to the funds for all hours worked by members of the union, not just bargaining unit work. The collective bargaining agreements are clear that DLF is required to make contributions to the pension and health and welfare funds for each hour worked by a covered employee.

Indiana Supreme Court
Robert L. Clark, Jr. and Debra Clark v. Robert L. Clark, Sr.
01S02-1112-CT-690
Civil tort. Reverses judgment in favor of Clark Sr. in Clark Jr.’s suit after his father hit him with his car while trying to give his father directions. Holds that for purposes of the Indiana Gust Statute as to injuries inflicted when a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver’s attempt to park, that passenger is not “in or upon” the vehicle and thus is not precluded from brining a negligence action against the driver. Remands for further proceedings. Justices Sullivan and Massa dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1203-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Edwin D. Calligan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-400
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms original decision to deny motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Savane Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1106-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, but finds the trial court erred in the manner in which it imposed the habitual offender enhancement. Remands for further proceedings.

Rosalio Pedraza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-PC-1076
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Robert Grubbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1109-PC-606
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion for reconsideration and motion to correct error.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT