ILNews

Opinions Nov. 23, 2010

November 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC
10-2327
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Civil. Affirms the judgment of the District Court that granted Anodyne’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $72,747. The award was based on 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which allows attorneys’ fees to be awarded to prevailing parties in Lanham Act suits, but only in “exceptional cases.” Nightingale contended no award of attorneys’ fees was justified because the case was not “exceptional.” Also grants Anodyne’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to Rule 38 of the appellate rules. Dismisses as moot Anodyne’s motion to strike Nightingale’s brief and appendix.

June Kimmel v. Western Reserve Life Assurance Company of Ohio
10-1336
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Western Reserve Life Assurance Company of Ohio. The insurance company had neither accepted nor denied the life insurance application of June Kimmel’s late husband, Richard Kimmel, within a 60-day timeframe. Richard died in an automobile accident six weeks after the end of that 60-day period. The 7th Circuit concludes that  "although Western Reserve deserves criticism for its handling of Richard’s application for life insurance, its behavior is not actionable under Indiana tort law” because ”the relationship between an insured and an insurer is different enough from the relationship between an applicant and a prospective insurer.”

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
 
Deidre Carter v. Grace Whitney Properties
82A04-1003-SC-177
Civil. Reverses and remands findings of small claims court. Concludes Vanderburgh County Local Rules 1.23(C) and 1.05(E), as applied here, violate Article 1, Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution because they contemplate the use of contempt to enforce an obligation to pay money even where, as here, the debt does not involve child support or fraud.
 
Larry Cox v. State of Indiana
79A04-0912-CR-741
Criminal. Reverses and remands Cox’s convictions of 10 counts of Class A felony child molesting and five counts of Class C felony child molesting. Concludes the trial court improperly permitted the state to introduce a videotaped statement in lieu of live direct examination, and that that error was not harmless.

Gregory Owens v. State of Indiana
29A02-1002-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms Owens’ conviction of child molesting. Concludes the state did not infringe upon his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by introducing evidence that he did not contact police. Also finds the prosecutor’s comment in closing argument was improper but did not rise to the level of fundamental error requiring reversal.
 
Erik E. Neal, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1003-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for felony murder.
 
Steven Thrash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms conviction of aggravated battery, a Class B felony. Revises 10-year sentence to eight years with six years executed and two years suspended.

Tara K. Mateyko v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms conviction of theft, a Class D felony.
 
Kyle Sheets v. Kandie Sheets (NFP)
48A02-1004-DR-419
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of mother’s request for permission to move with the parties’ children to Oklahoma.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT