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. This is easily remedied, and in a fashion that every church sacrificing incense for its 501c3 status and/or graveling for government grants should have no problem with ..... just add this statue, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg entitled, "Jesus and Cousin John learn to suckle sustenance from the beloved Nanny State." Heckfire, the ACLU might even help move the statue in place then. And the art will certainly reflect our modern life, given the clergy's full-bellied willingness to accede to every whim of the new caesars. If any balk, just threaten to take away their government milk … they will quiet down straightaway, I assure you. Few, if any of them, are willing to cross the ruling elite as did the real J&J

  2. Tina has left the building.

  3. Is JLAP and its bevy of social "scientists" the cure to every ailment of the modern practitioner? I see no allegations as to substance abuse, but I sure see a judge who has seemingly let power go to her head and who lacks any appreciation for the rule of law. Seems that she needs help in her legal philosophy and judicial restraint, not some group encounter session to affirm she is OK, we are OK. Can’t we lawyers just engage in peer professionalism and even peer pressure anymore? Need we social workers to tell us it is wrong to violate due process? And if we conduct ourselves with the basic respect for the law shown by most social workers .... it that good enough in Indiana? If not, then how is JLAP to help this 2003 law school grad get what her law school evidently failed to teach her? (In addition .... rhetorical question … I have a theory that the LAP model serves as a conduit for governmental grace when the same strict application of the law visited upon the poor and the powerless just will not do. See in the records of this paper ... can the argument be made that many who save their licenses, reputations, salaries by calling upon that font of grace are receiving special treatment? Who tracks the application of said grace to assure that EP and DP standards are fully realized? Does the higher one climbs inside the Beltway bring greater showers of grace? Should such grace be the providence of the government, or the churches and NGO's? Why, we would not want to be found mixing the remnants of our abandoned faith with the highest loyalty to the secularist state, now would we?)

  4. Is JLAP and its bevy of social "scientists" the cure to every ailment of the modern practitioner? I see no allegations as to substance abuse, but I sure see a judge who has seemingly let power go to her head and who lacks any appreciation for the rule of law. Seems that she needs help in her legal philosophy and judicial restraint, not some group encounter session to affirm she is OK, we are OK. Cannot we lawyers not engage in peer professionalism and even pressure anymore? Need we social workers to tell us it is wrong to violate due process? And if we conduct ourselves with the basis respect for the law shown by most social workers .... it that good enough in Indiana?

  5. Judge Baker nails it: "Russell was in a place he did not have a right to be, to take an action he did not have a right to take. Russell neglected to leave that property even after engaging in a heated argument with and being struck with a broom handle by the property owner." AS is noted below ... sad to think that the next shoe to drop will be the thief suing the car owner. That is justice?

ADVERTISEMENT