ILNews

Opinions Nov. 26, 2013

November 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision was handed down after IL deadline Tuesday:
Wanda Goodpaster, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
13-1629
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s denial of the bar owners’ request for injunctive and declaratory relief against the enforcement of the smoking ban in Indianapolis. They cannot succeed on the merits of any of their myriad claims. The injunction the bar owners sought was thus unwarranted.

Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Kelley L. Kelly v. Tiffany L. Kravec
02A05-1304-DR-158
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Kelly’s motion to correct error following the entry of the post-dissolution order awarding $5,000 in attorney fees to Kelly’s ex-wife in a proceeding involving parenting time. The attorney fee issue was not barred by res judicata and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering him to pay a portion of his ex-wife’s attorney fees.

Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl
32A04-1304-DR-163
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Barbara Pohl’s petition to terminate post-dissolution spousal maintenance. Concludes that, in considering the evidence, the trial court could have refused to modify the agreement under a standard requiring a showing of fraud, duress, or mistake or a standard requiring a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.

International Business Machines Corporation v. ACS Human Services, LLC

49A02-1301-PL-49
Civil plenary. Affirms order that IBM pay more than $700,000 in costs related to discovery and production of documents incurred by ACS Human Services LLC, a nonparty to the lawsuits IBM and the State of Indiana filed against each other. Affirms sanctions of more than $425,000 against ACS in favor of IBM. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded ACS some, but not all, of the damages it requested as a result of its participation in discovery as a nonparty under Trial Rule 34. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion when it awarded IBM some, but not all, of the attorney fees and other damages it incurred as a result of ACS’ failure to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders.

Sally Thompson, Widow of Dennis Thompson v. York Chrysler
93A02-1302-EX-153
Agency action. Reverses determination by the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board that Dennis Thompson did not prove his injury was compensable. The board’s findings did not support its conclusion that his injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of his employment. Sally Thompson demonstrated Dennis Thompson was entitled to benefits. Remands for determination of the benefits she should receive on his behalf.

Evan Leedy v. State of Indiana
49A04-1303-CR-102
Criminal. Affirms finding Leedy is incompetent to stand trial for four counts of operating while intoxicated stemming from an automobile accident that killed his girlfriend and seriously injured another motorist and the commitment to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction. The trial court followed statutory procedure and that statute does not run afoul of Leedy’s due process rights.

Keith Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-PC-49
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian D. Hodges v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1302-CR-71
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Georgia Amerson, et al., v. Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development and Durham D&M, LLC. (NFP)
93A02-1301-EX-67
Agency action. Affirms decision that employee bus drivers and monitors of various school systems were not eligible for unemployment compensation because they were on unpaid vacation without remuneration because of their employer’s regular vacation policy and practice pursuant to I.C. 22-4-3-5.

Deandre Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1304-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Jessup and Diane Jessup v. Chicago Franchise Systems, Inc. and Jag's Dough Decor d/b/a Nancy's Pizza (NFP)
29A02-1302-PL-160
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. The trial court properly declined to modify the arbitration award, and Chicago Franchise Systems cannot be characterized as a “prevailing party” for purposes of recovery of attorney fees. However, the trial court’s order should have included the additional amount the arbitrator awarded the Jessups “over and above the net award.”

Brandon A. Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1303-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Kenneth Galvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1305-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Galvin serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the DOC with credit for time served.

Arturo Torres v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1301-PC-17
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re the Marriage of Scott Roll and Carol Roll, Carol Roll v. Scott Roll (NFP)
27A02-1303-DR-247
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. The trial court considered husband’s VA disability benefits, and did not abuse its discretion when it included wife’s health savings account as marital property. However, the trial court did err when it did not attach specific values to the assets and debts awarded to each party in its unequal distribution.

James Handy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1303-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting and remands for correction to the abstract of judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT