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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT