ILNews

Opinions July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014
Keywords
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.
29S02-1407-CT-483
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
49A02-1310-PC-887
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
68A05-1309-CR-460
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
90A04-1307-CR-370
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.
29A02-1304-PL-309
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.
49A04-1305-CT-267
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)
29A02-1309-CR-841
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)
82A01-1310-CR-454
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)
49A05-1306-PL-294
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.




 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT