ILNews

Opinions May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Medical Automation Systems Inc., et al.
11-1446
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Modifies the District Court’s judgment of allowing the sale of MAS to Alere to proceed by incorporating the 11 hold-separate conditions listed in the 7th Circuit’s opinion. Alere and MAS can close their transaction if they respect those conditions and the District Court’s requirement that Roche receive its unimpaired period of exclusive use of MAS’ diabetes-product software. The District Court issued an injunction implementing its decision and it expires as soon as the arbitrator renders a decision or at the end of 2012 if the arbitrator hasn’t acted.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Estate of Bradley Kinser, et al. v. Indiana Insurance Company
29A02-1009-PL-1093
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on its motion for declaratory judgment that it’s not obligated to cover any losses following Bradley Kinser’s accident and death while driving his girlfriend’s car because his policy excluded coverage for a vehicle furnished or available for his regular use. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to the scope and extent that Kinser felt he needed his girlfriend’s permission to drive her car, which affects the determination of whether the car was furnished or available for his regular use.

Clint Cullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1009-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms denial of verified petition for judicial review of alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Paternity of C.C.; M.L. v. J.C. (NFP)
15A01-1009-JP-534
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying physical custody of son in favor of child’s father.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.S.; C.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A05-1010-JT-719
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1010-CR-1439
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony intimidation while drawing or using a deadly weapon and Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child less than 16 years of age.


Joseph Wright v. Aquavalyn Wright (NFP)
45A03-1010-DR-556
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of petition for modification of child support.

Jimmy E. Griffin II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1008-CR-919
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony attempted battery and reverses conviction of Class C felony battery.

Otis Allen Tate, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1009-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Keith McClaran, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (NFP)
55A01-1006-MF-289
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms judgment and grant of foreclosure to MERS as nominee for GMAC Mortgage Corp.

Elliott J. Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Mark Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A04-1011-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Michael Nordman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1005-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony intimidation.

Timothy S. Hanna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1009-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and two counts of Class C misdemeanor furnishing alcohol to a minor.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT