Opinions Nov. 26, 2013

November 26, 2013
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.
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
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
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

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
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
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian D. Hodges v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Kenneth Galvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues