ILNews

Opinions June 9, 2014

July 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, City of Indianapolis, Department of Waterworks, and City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Company and FCCI Insurance Company a/s/o Ultra Steak, Inc., et al.
49S04-1301-PL-8
Civil plenary. Grants petition for rehearing on the issue of whether the insurers are third-party beneficiaries to the management agreement between Veolia and the city of Indianapolis. As to all issues not expressly addressed in the principal opinion, the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
George Moss v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-961
Criminal. Affirms convictions of burglary, two counts of robbery, criminal confinement and carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court did not err in refusing to reopen the case to admit a transcript of a statement Moss intended to use to prove his duress defense. Affirms 40-year sentence.

John Lane-El v. Michael Spears, in his official capacity of Chief of Police, and the Indianapolis Police Department
49A05-1306-PL-289
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Lane-El’s request for public records with the IPD. The trial court erred in determining that the Indiana Tort Claims Act barred suit against Spears, but he is not a proper party to the suit. It also erred in determining the IPD was not a suable entity under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act and therefore not a proper party for the suit. The trial court did not commit clear error in denying Lane-El’s motion for in camera review.

David J. Markey v. Estate of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, Personal Representative under the Last Will and Testament of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, et al.
89A05-1402-ES-62
Estate.  Affirms summary judgment in favor of the estate regarding David Markey’s claim that Frances Markey had violated a contract with his father to make mutual wills. Finds that a three-month period of limitation applies to Markey’s action and that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Salvino Verta, et al. v. Salvino Pucci
45A03-1309-PL-387
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s order denying Verta’s combined motion to reconsider/motion to correct error/motion for relief from judgment, in which he challenged the court order that required him to pay $11,400 in damages to Pucci. Remands for the trial court for a hearing to further determine what, if any, monetary damages should be awarded given the chronological case summary’s lack of an entry to indicate that the clerk had sent notice to Verta of a January 2013 order.

William M. Belcher v. Catherine Kroczek, D.D.S.
45A03-1311-CT-436
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Belcher’s motion to transfer venue of Kroczek’s complaint from Lake County to Marion County, where he lives. Kroczek’s alleged injury to her reputation, privacy and identity are not transferrable, so they are not considered chattels under Indiana Trial Rule 75(A)(2).

Darwin Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-981
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and resisting law enforcement.

Marion County Health Department v. Edward Hill (NFP)
93A02-1402-EX-69
Agency action. Affirms the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board to award Hill employee compensation and benefits related to his unauthorized medical care.

Jerry D. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1306-PC-238
Post conviction. On rehearing, discusses ineffective assistance of counsel claim and affirms previous decision in all respects.

Louis Timothy Whyde v. Black Diamond Construction, LLC (NFP)
02A04-1402-CT-64
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Black Diamond Construction on Whyde’s lawsuit alleging negligence.

Keith R. Chaney v. Laura C. Chaney (NFP)
84A04-1312-DR-648
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Keith Chaney’s motion for relief from judgment.

Richard Burrington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1401-CR-40
Criminal. Dismisses the pro se appeal of the revocation of probation.

Derrek T. Berryhill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1310-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class B felony aiding, inducing or causing the commission of a robbery.

Victor Glenn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-774
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT