ILNews

Opinions Nov. 14, 2012

November 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Fox v. Nichter Construction Co., Inc.
03A01-1202-SC-52
Small claims/wages. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands in part the dismissal of Fox’s wage claim with prejudice and orders the court to enter a dismissal of the claim with prejudice. A divided appeals court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Fox had pursued his claim through the Department of Labor under the Wage Claim statute before filing suit. The appeals court ordered the trial court to dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including the failure to name the real party in interest. Fox may refile his claim setting forth the reassignment by the Department of Labor.

Clinton Couch v. State of Indiana
48A04-1204-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in imposing a 91-year sentence for a child molester. Couch argued the trial court circumvented his plea agreement by considering his uncharged conduct an aggravating circumstance that led to the enhanced and consecutive sentences. However, the COA ruled the trial court did not find the testimony of two other alleged victims about Couch’s uncharged conduct to be an aggravating circumstance.  

 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT