ILNews

Opinions June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Joseph Agnew v. NCAA
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
11-3066
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit against the NCAA, holding plaintiffs failed to show that the NCAA’s policies limiting athletic scholarships violate the Sherman Act, because the case does not present for discussion the existence of a student athlete labor market.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Don Morris and Randy Coakes v. Brad Crain, Richard Redpath, BioSafe Engineering, LLC, Steve Biesecker, Tyler Johnson, Brandon Ross and Cris Sollars
32A01-1109-PL-414
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court summary judgment in favor of several defendants in a company ownership dispute, holding that the order included a procedure inconsistent with summary judgment.

Shepell Orr v. State of Indiana
45A03-1107-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms two murder convictions imposed by the trial court, ruling the court did not reversibly err in allowing the state to try to impeach a witness with extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement.

Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools v. Gary Grant v. Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools and Stanley Hall
52A04-1107-PL-352
Civil plenary. The trial court erred in denying Peru School Corp.’s motion for judgment on the evidence as it pertains to Grant’s employment as an at-will custodian because there is no substantial evidence of detrimental reliance, which is required to defeat the presumption of at-will employment. But because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to why Grant was fired, the appellate court finds the trial court properly denied the school corporation’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the issue of wrongful termination to go to a jury. Holds Grant is only entitled to nearly $2,500 in damages, not the $175,000 awarded by the jury. Remands for further proceedings.

Sandra Mourfield v. Melvin Mourfield (NFP)
48A05-1111-DR-666
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s grant of father’s petition to modify child support, holding the father’s retirement and reduced income were a result of his intentional criminal misconduct. Remands for the trial court to enter a new order reflecting father’s original child support obligation.

Corey Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-612
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate either Class D felony criminal confinement or Class D felony pointing a firearm, along with the corresponding sentence, holding that the two charges arose from the same offense. Affirms the trial court in all other regards.

Indiana State Police v. Earnest Howard, Jr. (NFP)
45A04-1110-MI-568
Miscellaneous. Holds the trial court’s order overturning the decision of an Administrative Law Judge was in error, as was its denial of Indiana State Police’s motion to dismiss Howard’s petition. Reverses and remands to the trial court to reinstate the ALJ’s decision.

Courtney G. Tressler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A05-1112-CR-699
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.S., N.S., and M.S.; and A.S. and D.F., and J.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1111-JT-1123
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and the two fathers of her three children.

Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc. v. 5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-676
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Filmcraft Laboratories, holding that a Continuing Guaranty agreement does not show that Filmcraft would be liable for environmental clean-up costs. Affirms the trial court in other regards.

William Capps, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1108-CR-694
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s decision to deny Capps’ motion for a directed verdict and remands for the court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery and to enter a judgment of conviction for and sentence on the inherently included offense of Class A misdemeanor battery.  

Tina R. Like Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A05-1111-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony neglect of a dependant, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT