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. 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