Opinions July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gared Holdings, LLC v. Best Bolt Products, Inc.
Civil plenary.  Affirms the trial court’s judgment on Gared’s claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as those claims are supported by the evidence. The trial court erred in ruling that Best Bolt was not a merchant. Remands for the trial court to determine whether Best Bolt breached the implied warranty of merchantability, and if so, whether that alters the result of Best Bolt’s counterclaim. Chief Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion and dissents in part.

Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone
Domestic relation. The trial court did not err in refusing to approve the parties’ settlement agreement regarding child custody without receiving evidence regarding whether the agreement was in M.S.’s best interests, nor did it err in allowing mother to present evidence and argue that it was not in M.S.’s best interests. The trial court abused its discretion in denying father’s third continuance motion. Reverses and remands for a new hearing regarding custody of M.S. Also reverses that part of the dissolution decree ordering father to pay $5,000 towards mother’s attorney fees. The dissolution decree’s property division orders, as reflected in the settlement agreement, are affirmed.

In The Paternity of J.P.: P.M. (Mother) v. J.P. (Father) (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order finding mother in contempt of court.

Michael Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses revocation of community corrections placement.

Julio Joel Delgado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Anthony Shockley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class C felony attempted robbery, but remands for correction of the abstract of judgment.

Dheeraj Gulati v. Twinkle Gujral (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms portion of the trial court’s decree of dissolution concerning international travel with the parties’ minor child E.G.
In the Matter of the Adoption of C.A.H., minor; J.N.E. v. L.M.H. (NFP)
Adoption. Affirms order denying the biological mother’s motion for relief of judgment to set aside an adoption decree in favor of L.M.H.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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?