ILNews

Opinions May 23, 2014

May 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Andrew J. Rogers v. Sigma Chi International Fraternity, Theta Pi of Sigma Chi, Ancil Jackson, Brian Mifflin, Jr., and Joshua Kearby
84A04-1305-CT-224
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Sigma Chi International fraternity, its Terre Haute chapter and Jackson, Mifflin and Kearby on Rogers’ claim the defendants should have protected him from being assaulted at a party. Sigma Chi did not have possession of the premises where Rogers was injured, the defendants had no duty to protect him from the assault, and the International fraternity was not vicariously liable for the acts of the persons at the premises because it had no actual or apparent authority over them.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of C.P., C.P. v. Community Hospital North/Gallahue Mental Health
49A02-1309-MH-770
Mental health. Affirms 90-day involuntary commitment to Community Hospital North. The psychiatrist’s testimony provided clear and convincing evidence that C.P. was gravely disabled.

Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana
49A04-1308-CR-382
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute. Because the evidence most favorable to the state permits an inference only that the police induced Griesemer’s criminal behavior, but does not contain any evidence permitting an inference that Griesemer was predisposed to commit patronizing a prostitute, entrapment was established as a matter of law. Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents.

Christopher Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1309-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Agav Properties, Avrohem Tkatch, and Elisheva Tkatch v. The City of South Bend and The South Bend Fire Department (NFP)
71A04-1308-PL-396
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss and motion of summary judgment filed by the city of South Bend and the fire department on claims alleging negligence, intentional interference with a contractual relationship and violation of state and federal constitutional rights.

Town of New Pekin, Indiana v. Gail Stewart and Kermit Stewart (NFP)
88A01-1310-PL-442
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the town’s motion for summary judgment and remands to the trial court for adjudication by the finder of fact.

R & M Construction, Inc., and Lake County Trust Company, as Trustee Under a Trust Agreement Dated May 17, 1989 and Known as Trust No. 1901 v. Twin Lakes Utilities, Inc. (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment on R&M's and the trust’s claims and reverses summary judgment to Twin Lakes as to its claim for declaratory judgment. Remands for further proceedings on Twin Lakes' claims.

Michael Nero v. Citimortgage, Inc. (NFP)
52A02-1312-MF-1017
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of Citimortgage in its mortgage foreclosure action.

Adrian Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-365
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

In re the Marriage of: Carla Weiler v. Kevin P. Weiler (NFP)
45A03-1310-DR-424
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and vacates in part husband’s motion to enforce decree of dissolution of marriage. Remands for the trial court to order the parties to ensure the marital residence is listed for sale.

Ronald DeWayne Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1310-CR-511
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for mistrial.

EMR Consulting, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Laura Shipp (NFP)
93A02-1308-EX-691
Agency action. Affirms decision to grant Shipp unemployment benefits.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. 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