ILNews

Opinions March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court

Mark J. Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, et al.
94S00-1109-CQ-570
Certified question. Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a) applies to a member of the 1977 Fund who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code 2-5-5(c). And the time period during which a person receives disability benefits under Indiana Code 36-8-8-12(e) does not count toward “years of service” as that term is used in Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a).

Indiana Court of Appeals
CBR Event Decorators, Inc., Gregory Rankin, Robert Cochrane and John Bales v. Todd M. Gates
49A02-1010-CT-1117
Civil tort. The trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil because Gates failed to establish a causal connection between misuse of the corporate form and fraud or injustice. Affirms judgment against CBR for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent transfer, and wrongful stop payment. Remands for a determination of the portion of attorney fees the shareholders are liable for to Gates as a result of the wrongful stop payment.

John Shocke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1107-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Jamika J. Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1107-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of M.B. v. Wishard Health Services Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1106-MH-505
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment.

Larry Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-706
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Darrick Scott and Paul A. Watson v. City of Terre Haute, et al. (NFP)

84A01-1108-PL-337
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Terre Haute and other city actors on Scott and Watson’s civil complaint alleging that the appointment of 10 firefighters to the position of battalion chief was illegal and circumvented the merit system.

David A. Bowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1108-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT