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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT