Opinions May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of petition for modification of child support.

Jimmy E. Griffin II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

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

Elliott J. Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

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

Michael Nordman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony intimidation.

Timothy S. Hanna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit