ILNews

Opinions June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Robert Yeftich, et al. v. Navistar Inc. and Indianapolis Casting Corp.
12-2964
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of complaint filed by group of unionized workers alleging breach of collective-bargaining agreement under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The complaint lacked enough factual content to plead a plausible claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, which is required to pursue this litigation.

Indiana Supreme Court
Tim Berry, Auditor of State; M. Caroline Spotts, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; and The State of Indiana/ Brian C. Bosma, Speaker v. William Crawford, et al.
49S00-1201-PL-53 and 49S00-1202-PL-76
Civil plenary. Reversed the judgment of the trial court, remands and directs the trial court to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of justiciability. A split court ruled the  House of Representatives has the authority, granted by the Indiana Constitution, to levy fines against members of the House Democratic Caucus for leaving during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions. Moreover, the doctrine of separation of powers precludes judicial consideration of the Democrats’ claims for relief. Justice Robert Rucker dissented, arguing the House’s constitutionally granted discretion to punish its members does not include the ability to reduce its members’ compensation.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Curatolo, Et Al.,
45A03-1211-MF-469
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order modifying Nationstar Mortgage’s mortgage agreement with Curatolo. The trial court lacked the authority to modify the agreement without the consent of both parties.

Bertram A. Graves, M.D. v. Richard Kovacs, M.D., Edward Ross, M.D., and Indiana University Health f;/k/a Clarian Health Partners, Inc.
49A05-1301-PL-1
Civil plenary. Reverses the granting of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Kovacs and Ross and remands for further proceedings. The court found that although Graves’ complaint may have been unartfully drafted, the trial court erred in concluding that the complaint failed to state any actionable claim against Kovacs and Ross.     
 
Duane Crocker v. State of Indiana

79A04-1210-CR-542
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Crocker’s motion to suppress evidence. The court ruled Crocker should have been Mirandized as soon as he entered the police car and therefore his incriminating statements should have been suppressed. However, Crocker had signed a ‘Pirtle’ form and did not admit to knowing he was transporting marijuana until after he consented to the search of his vehicle.

Dartanyan Porche v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1206-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms Porche’s conviction of felony murder and 55-year sentence.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.F. and D.F. and S.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1211-JT-905
Juvenile termination. Affirms trial court’s judgment to terminate parental rights of S.K. and D.F.

Frank Tiller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1211-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms Tiller’s conviction of felony murder following a jury trial. The court ruled that given the blood stain evidence and the close proximity in time and location that Tiller was to the victim, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Tiller was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Thomas A. Dexter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1210-PC-557
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of Dexter’s petition for post-conviction relief.   

Lake Shore Estates MHC, LLC. v. Michael H. Lane, Et Al. (NFP)
71A05-1210-PL-512
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the government defendants and the collection agent.  

Charles C. Hitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

42A04-1210-CR-508
Criminal.  Affirms denial of Hitt’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to a Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. The court ruled Hitt did not show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to withdraw his plea.  

David Lautenschlager v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-PC-653
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Lautenschlager’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.M. and M.M.; R.M. and Indiana Department of Child Services, Annette Marion and Kenneth Marion (NFP)
02A04-1209-JC-468
Juvenile. Affirms the trial court’s order or judgment of the court awarding custody of C.M. and M.M. to their grandparents, K.M. and A.M.  

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.C. and R.C. and S.C. and R.C. Sr., S.C. & R.C. Sr. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1211-JT-501
Juvenile termination. Affirms court’s order to terminate parental rights to J.C. and R.C., Jr.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. 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