ILNews

Opinions May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems Inc. v. Real Action Paintball Inc. and K.T. Tran
13-3005
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Reverses finding that the court has personal jurisdiction and that Advanced Technical was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Remands with directions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence that defendant Real Action has the necessary minimum contacts with Indiana to support specific jurisdiction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dan Weaver v. George Niederkorn
49A05-1309-CT-448
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Weaver’s motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in favor of Niederkorn. Weaver has not established reversible error.

Carroll Creek Development Company, Inc. v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana
02A03-1307-PL-282
Civil plenary. Reverses partial summary judgment to the town on one part of Carroll Creek’s breach of contract claim. The trial court erroneously interpreted the contract as a matter of law. Remands for further proceedings.

Guadalupe Puente v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana, PNC Bank, Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., and Meridian Title Corp.
45A03-1304-PL-159
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Fidelity on the issue of whether it is entitled to subrogation of Puente’s liability claims. The contract allows Fidelity to stand in the shoes of its insured with respect to Puente’s potential causes of action.

James Cody Ertel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1307-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Brian S. Moore v. Kristy L. Moore (NFP)
49A04-1308-DR-401
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of parenting time and legal custody, reverses income imputed to father for child support purposes in the amount of $50,000 a year and remands for further proceedings.

George H. Glawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1309-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony failure to return to lawful detention.

In Re: The Visitation of H.B., A.B. v. T.S. and A.S. (NFP)
87A01-1309-MI-415
Miscellaneous. Remands to the trial court for new findings and conclusions without hearing new evidence as the findings and conclusions by the trial court regarding relevant factors are incomplete.

Robert Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1309-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms finding that Campbell was in contempt of court but remands for the trial court to impose a sentence not exceeding six months. Affirms decisions forbidding the application of good-time credit in these circumstances.

In re the Adoption of M.D.: S.D. (Father) v. S.F. (Mother), and D.M. (Adoptive Parent) (NFP)
71A03-1309-JP-363
Juvenile. Affirms grant of stepfather’s petition to adopt M.D.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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