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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT