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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT