ILNews

Opinions June 20, 2014

June 20, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

James Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Department, Michigan City Area Schools
13-2893
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Michigan City schools on Nichols’ allegations of Title VII violations. He did not provide sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the harassment he allegedly suffered while working as a temporary janitor was severe or pervasive. He also failed to provide sufficient evidence that his alleged harasser was a proximate cause of his firing because affidavits from his supervisors show that he would have been let go even if there was no feud between Nichols and the harasser.

Indiana Supreme Court
Ralph Andrews v. Mor/Ryde International, Inc.
20S04-1406-PL-399
Civil plenary. Grants transfer and reverses trial court holding that punitive damage restrictions apply under the Sales Representative Act. Holds that treble damages under the Act are not subject to the Punitive Damages Act.


Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Fares Pawn LLC and William K. Saalwaechter v. Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, et al.
13-3240
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the defendants on Saalwaechter’s lawsuit alleging the Department of Financial Institutions violated the equal protection clause when processing his application for a pawnbroking license. No reasonable jury could conclude that DFI treated Saalwaechter differently from similarly situated applicants without a rational reason.


Indiana Supreme Court
Nick McIlquham v. State of Indiana
49S05-1401-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms admittance of contraband found in an apartment by police during a warrantless search.  McIlquham and the other resident of the apartment consented to a full search of the apartment after their young child was found unsupervised wandering near a pond in their apartment complex.

Indiana Court of Appeals
DECA Financial Services, LLC v. Tina Gray
02A04-1311-SC-595
Small claim. Affirms denial of attorney fees as part of DECA Financial Services’ small claims judgment against Gray. The attorney fees provision of the agreement Gray entered into with Dupont Hospital for payment of medical services at the hospital and Emergency Medicine of Indiana only applies to Dupont and not to DECA, the assignee of debt owed by Gray to Emergency Medicine.

George Odongo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1308-PC-377
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Patrick McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1311-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness with use of a vehicle.

German Espichan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Jenni Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1311-MI-942
Miscellaneous. Affirms determination of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles that Hill is a habitual traffic violator.

John F. VanDeVanter, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1311-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and resisting law enforcement.  

Jane Shamley v. Gordon Shamley (NFP)
29A05-1401-DR-17
Domestic relation. Affirms order awarding Jane Shamely a 55 percent division of the marital assets.

Denon Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-PC-265
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Joseph B. Fowler v. Kathleen L. Fowler (NFP)
42A05-1402-DR-54
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Joseph Fowler’s motion to correct error, which challenged an order for college expenses and child support arrearage.

Charles Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1310-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Coleman serve 400 days of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

OneWest Bank, FSB v. Jason Jarvis, Natalie Jarvis, Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc., as Nominees for American Mortgage Network, Inc., GE Money Bank, et. al. (NFP)
45A05-1312-MF-615
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses sanction imposed by the trial court upon finding OneWest in contempt and remands with instructions to remove that language from the September 2013 order.

Harry White, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1312-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for attempted murder, Class C felony intimidation, Class D felony strangulation, Class D felony auto theft and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT