ILNews

Opinions June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Judson Atkinson Candies, Incorporated v. Kenray Associates, Incorporated, Charles A. McGee and Kenneth J. McGee
12-1035, 12-1036
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr.
Civil. Reverses District Court ruling that Judson Atkinson must demonstrate that it had been induced by fraud to enter into the integration clause in a settlement agreement between it and Kenray Associates, as opposed to the agreement as a whole, in order to circumvent the parol evidence rule. Indiana law does not impose such a bright-line rule.

United States of America v. $196,969.00 United States Currency; Rodney Johnson

12-3414
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Johnson’s claim that he has rights to the money found in his home after a search by police and order of forfeiture of the money. The reasons given by the judge and the alternative ground argued by the government are unsound. Remands for the District Court to decide whether to give Johnson another try to assert his claim.

Jennifer Hitchcock v. Angel Corps, Inc.
12-3515
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Angel Corps on Hitchcock’s claim she was fired because she was pregnant. She submitted evidence that the supervisor who fired her expressed animus toward pregnant women and treated Hitchcock differently after learning she was pregnant. Many of Angel Corps’ explanations for the firing were shifting, inconsistent, and/or factually implausible. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Deshaun Richards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-467
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony robbery.

In Re The Paternity of R.M., a minor; B.M. v. A.T. (NFP)
39A01-1209-JP-441
Juvenile. Reverses denial of father’s petition to modify custody and remands with instructions to hold a hearing in regard to the supplemental GAL report and to reconsider his petition to modify custody in light of that hearing and all other evidence introduced concerning the petition.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no 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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT