ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2014

June 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
South Shore Baseball, LLC d/b/a Gary South Shore RailCats and Northwest Sports Venture, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus
45S03-1308-CT-531
Civil tort. Reverses trial court denial of a motion for summary judgment to the Railcats defendants in a case brought by a fan injured by a foul ball hit into the stands at a minor-league baseball game. Holding the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, remands to the trial court to enter judgment accordingly.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Imbody v. Fifth Third Bank

49A05-1307-CC-322
Collections. Reverses trial court judgment in favor of Fifth Third Bank, holding that a suit seeking to collect on an alleged breach of a promissory note secured by a vehicle was time-barred under the applicable statute. The panel ruled that applicable six-year statute of limitations began to run when Robert Imbody’s vehicle was repossessed in May 2006, therefore, the suit filed in June 2012 was untimely. Instructs the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Imbody.

Alan R. Brill, Business Management Consultants, LP f/k/a Brill Media Company, LP, and the Non-Debtor Companies v. Regent Communications, Inc., n/k/a Townsquare Media, Inc.
82A01-1304-PL-174
Civil plenary. Reverses the denial of Regent’s motion to dismiss. Rules Virginia law governs the substantive and procedural issues in the business agreements from 2000 and 2002. Therefore, Brill failed to file its complaint within the five-year statute of limitations provided by Virginia law.

J.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1311-EX-1003
Agency action. Affirms dismissal of request for unemployment benefits.

Edward D. Bagshaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1305-CR-236
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and 65-year sentence.

Joseph D. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-883
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and remands to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court’s stated reasons for revocation.
 
Jeffrey Allen Gosney, Jr. v. Teri Gosney (NFP)
53A01-1310-DR-452
Domestic relation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions to reconcile inconsistent orders regarding father’s parenting time.

Richard R. Hogshire v. Ursula Hoover (NFP)
06A01-1309-DR-402
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands, finding the trial court erred in ordering Hogshire to pay $750 a week in maintenance to Hoover and to pay outstanding and future fees to an expert witness hired to valuate his businesses.
 
Charles Swift v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence and convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class C felony robbery.

Clifford Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1311-CR-983
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana 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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT