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

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