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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT