Opinions July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday:

Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corp.
Civil tort. Summarily affirms Court of Appeals ruling reversing summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that attorney Carol Sparks Drake presented a genuine item of material fact as to whether defendants intentionally induced her employer, Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton, to terminate her partnership agreement. Remands to the trial court for proceedings.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Chris T. Collins v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief, concluding that the post-conviction court’s denial of Collins’ request of subpoenas was not an abuse of discretion and that denial of his petition was proper.

Jennifer L. Patch v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary. The evidence was sufficient to convict Patch, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Patch’s motion for a mistrial.

Michael B. Eliseo v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms trial court order that Eliseo pay $300 for a supplemental public defender service fee and $166 in court costs. The court has discretion under I.C. 33-40-3-6 and I.C. 33-37-2-3 to order payment of fees above the statutory $100 public defender cap after a finding of indgency, and no hearing is required, the majority opinion held. In a concurring opinion, Judge Patricia Riley found the trial court did not abuse its discretion, but she wrote the court is obligated to conduct a hearing on ability to pay at the time the costs are due.

Joseph D. Barnette, Jr., and Charlene Barnette, and City of Carmel Department of Community Services, Division of Building and Code Services, et al. v. US Architects, LLP, Albert D. Bowen, et al.
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for proceedings. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Bowens because they had not exhausted their administrative remedies before suing the city. Remands with instructions to dismiss U.S. Architects’ and the Bowens’ declaratory judgment complaint, and holds U.S. Architects lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment.

Phyllis Dodson, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Eboni Dodson, Deceased v. Curt D. Carlson, Carmel Hotel Company, d/b/a Grille 39, Seven Corners, Inc., et al.
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Seven Corners. Finds the “going and coming” limitation to the doctrine of respondeat superior absolves Seven Corners of any liability in an accident caused by its employee Carlson. Concludes even though Carlson had dinner and drinks with a client prior to the accident, he was not acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Andrew Prairie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony attempted theft, three counts of Class D felony receiving stolen property, and a count of Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle.

Kelsey Lynn Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Merrill C. Roberts v. Unlimited, LLC d/b/a Remax Unlimited and Matthew A. Gunning (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of an award of attorney fees sought by Roberts.

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. 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?

  2. 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"

  3. 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?

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

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."