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

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT