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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT