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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT