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
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