ILNews

Opinions July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Marion County Coroner’s Office v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and John Linehan
09-3595
Petition for review of an order of the EEOC. Upholds the EEOC determination that Coroner Ackles’ stated reason for taking action against Linehan was pretextual and that the EEOC had jurisdiction over Linehan’s retaliation claim. Reduces the compensatory damage award from $200,000 to a suggested $20,000. If the respondents do not consent to the remittitur, there will be a new hearing on the issue.

Prime Eagle Group Ltd., as assignee of the claims of Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. Ltd. v. Steel Dynamics Inc.
09-1663
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Civil. Affirms judgment for Steel Dynamics in Prime Eagle’s suit that Steel Dynamics must pay damages in tort for withdrawing from a steel mill venture in Asia. Nakornthai’s injury began no later than July 1999 and the company had knowledge of the injury then, so its suit is beyond the statute of limitations.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Steven Spangler and Heidi Brown v. Barbara Bechtel, Expectations Women's Health & Child Bearing Center, et al.
49A05-0908-CV-482
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Spangler and Brown’s suit for wrongful death and emotional distress after their child was stillborn. The parents have a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on Brown’s direct involvement in the stillbirth. Holds that a mother who suffers a stillbirth due to medical malpractice qualifies as an injured patient and satisfies the actual victim requirement under the Medical Malpractice Act regardless of whether the malpractice resulted in injuries to the mother, the fetus, or both, and the parents may assert a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Shuamber’s modified impact rule.

David A. Calvert v. State of Indiana
40A05-0911-CR-659
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony attempted robbery with a deadly weapon because the state failed to prove a substantial step. Calvert’s conviction of possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a Class D felony violates double jeopardy. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm as a serious violent felon. Affirms sentence and remands with instructions. Judge Kirsch dissents in part.

E.W. Revocable Trust
29A02-0910-CV-1004
Civil. Affirms order that the trustee pay the beneficiaries’ attorney fees, the reduction of the requested trustee fees, and the reduction of the amount of trustee’s attorney fees to be borne by the trust. The trustee breached duties owed to the objecting beneficiaries. Reverses order that the trustee bear the remaining portion of his attorney fees personally.

Cornelius Tyrone Lacey, Sr. v. State of Indiana
02A05-0910-CR-562
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant. There was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant but the unilateral decision to dispense with the knock-and-announce rule was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution. Judge Barnes concurs in result.

Damion Wilkins v. State of Indiana
02A03-0910-CR-451
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant. There was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant but the unilateral decision to dispense with the knock-and-announce rule was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution. Judge Barnes concurs in result.

Cedric Lewis v. State of Indiana
49A02-0908-CR-736
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The state failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the warrantless search of the vehicle and the seizure of the gun were satisfied. Judge Kirsch concurs in result; Judge Mathias dissents.

Bradford Drake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-0912-CR-577
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two convictions of attempted murder as Class A felonies.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.D.; M.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
34A02-1001-JT-156
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Dionte-Daymone Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1001-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony auto theft.

Daniel Brownlee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1259
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony attempted theft.

James Eiteljorg, et al. v. Ralph E. Lean (NFP)
49A05-0912-CV-679
Civil. Reverses denial of Eiteljorg and Bharti’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought by Lean seeking contribution from them for violations of the Indiana Securities Law. Remands with instructions.

Daniel J. Emery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-0910-PC-583
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Associated Builders & Contractors Indiana Chapter, Inc., et al. v. Lori A. Torres (NFP)
49A02-0910-CV-995
Civil. Grants rehearing but affirms original opinion in all respects regarding the dismissal of the builders’ complaint for lack of standing.

Robert Emerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT