ILNews

Opinions March 22, 2012

March 22, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued the following opinion after IL deadline on Wednesday:
Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Technologies, LLC, Gerald Kerber, and Stephen Odders
94S00-1109-CQ-546
Certified question. Answers three questions certified from U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in the Southern District of Indiana. Holds that Wabash Railroad Co. v. Young, 162 Ind. 102, 69 N.E. 1003 (1904), is no longer good law because it precludes individuals who’ve voluntarily left employment from pursuing a claim under Indiana’s Blacklisting Statute. The justices also held that attorney fees are not an element of compensatory damages under the Blacklisting Statute and that an employer’s suit against a former employee to protect trade secrets is not a basis for recovery under the statute.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court
Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Michael A. Gargano, et al.
49S02-1107-PL-437
Civil plenary. Reverses in part Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer’s ruling on challenge to Indiana Family and Social Services Administration’s automated system of processing claims for Medicaid, food stamps, and temporary assistance. Holds that the FSSA’s denial notices are insufficiently explanatory but that the agency may deny an application when that person fails to cooperate in the eligibility determination process. Affirms in part the trial court’s grant of Sheila Perdue’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that she’s entitled to reasonable accommodations in applying for benefits but that does not necessarily require a caseworker or case management services.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc., and Mezzetta Construction, Inc. v. Shannon D. Garrett
49S02-1106-CT-365
Civil tort. Reverses decision by Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed in case involving the employee of a concrete subcontractor injured in the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium. Finds construction manager did not have a legal duty by contract terms or action, and holds that construction manager cannot be held liable for workplace negligence. Justice Brent Dickson dissents, believing that material issues of fact exist about the construction manager’s duty of care and summary judgment is precluded for both parties.

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar, Inc. and RTS Realty
49S02-1104-PL-199
Civil plenary. Affirms Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele’s judgment in favor of Flexdar, holding that the language of a pollution exclusion in a general commercial liability policy is ambiguous and should be construed against State Automobile Insurance Co. and in favor of coverage. Justice Steven David concurs in result, and Justice Frank Sullivan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard dissent in a separate opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
New Albany Historic Preservation Commission and City of New Albany v. Bradford Realty, Inc.
22A01-1108-PL-365
Civil plenary. Affirms and reverses in part ruling by Special Judge Daniel Moore, finding that Bradford Realty was not entitled to actual notice of potential historic district designation and was required to obtain a certificate when it replaced the property’s original siding. Appellate judges reverse trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Bradford Realty and grant summary judgment to the historic preservation commission. Affirm the judge’s denial of summary judgment for Bradford Realty on inverse condemnation claim. Judge Ezra Friedlander dissents in separate opinion.

Lawane Chaney on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc.
49A05-0905-CV-263
Civil. Court issues rehearing on an order on a motion for appellate fees and costs, affirming its original holding but finding that it made two errors – that the record does not support the finding that Ron Weldy informed the trial court of the stay in his motion to compel, and that the record does not support the court’s prior statement that Weldy persisted on the theory that Clarian Health had agreed to provide discovery after the trial court vacated its motion to compel. The court found those errors are insignificant and do not change the outcome of the original order. The judges also denied Clarian’s request for additional fees and costs incurred in responding to the rehearing petition.

Donald L. Webb, III v. Sheriff Kenneth A. Murphy and Town of Brookville, Indiana; Terry Mitchum (NFP)
24A04-1104-CT-197
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s ruling in favor of Franklin County Sheriff and Town of Brookville on claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the fundamental error doctrine does not apply and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exempting the defendants’ expert from a separation of witnesses order.

In Re: The Marriage of Lisa Mae Slayback Gillispie v. Danny Lee Gillispie (NFP)
15A01-1108-DR-364
Divorce. Affirms trial court’s division of martial property.

The Marriage of: Donald J. Shaughnessy, Jr. v. Lyn A. Shaughnessy (NFP)
06A01-1107-DR-347
Divorce. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny an order for equal division of a marital estate.

Demitrus L. Grant v. The Bank of New York (NFP)
49A02-1104-MF-485
Mortgage foreclosure. Dismisses Demitrus Grant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss the complaint against Grant is not a final appealable order and Grant didn’t ask the trial court to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal.

Kenny Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony rape and Class D felony auto theft convictions and aggregate 40-year sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT