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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT