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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT