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. 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