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. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT