ILNews

Opinions May 1, 2014

May 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Electric, Inc., Arc Construction Co., Inc., Danco Construction, Inc., Deig Bros. Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation and EVSC Foundation, Inc.
82S01-1307-PL-473
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the antitrust claim. Reverses summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of a public bidding violation. Holds the procedure employed by the school corporation to renovate one of its buildings violated Indiana’s Public Work Statute, but not the Antitrust Act. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the taxpayers who brought the lawsuit as well as a declaration that the transactions by the school corporation violated the Public Work Statute.

Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15S01-1405-CR-309
Criminal. Grants transfer and affirms Brewington’s convictions for intimidating a judge and obstruction of justice related to a doctor, finding the evidence sufficient to support those convictions under I.C. 35-45-2-1(c)(1)-(3) – without implicating constitutional free-speech protections. Affirms Court of Appeals decision to reverse his intimidation convictions involving the doctor and judge’s wife and affirming Brewington’s perjury conviction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert W. Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1308-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

In re the Marriage of: John Lane v. Leisa Lane (NFP)
49A02-1308-DR-698
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of John Lane’s motion for relief from judgment. Lane may file a notice of appeal from the dissolution decree with the clerk of Court of Appeals within 30 days of this opinion being certified.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.J.L.E. (Minor Child), and B.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1311-JT-450
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1309-JT-396
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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. 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