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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT