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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT