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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT