ILNews

Opinions Nov. 4, 2011

November 4, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Liz Anderson, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeff Anderson v.Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
11-1064
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s dismissal of the Andersons’ Indiana law claims for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty and their federal claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act on the grounds that the Andersons did not give Gulf Stream a reasonable opportunity to cure. Holds that the evidence supports their contention that they did give Gulf Stream a reasonable opportunity to cure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Gulf Stream with respect to the Andersons’ claims for fraud and the commission of an “incurable” deceptive act. Remands for further proceedings.  

Friday's opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randall Perkins v. Jayco, Inc.
93A02-1104-EX-361
Miscellaneous. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s affirmation of a single hearing member, who had concluded that Perkins’ employer is not responsible for providing palliative care to Perkins. Holds that the board erred in concluding that a finding that Perkins had reached maximum medical improvement allows for an inference that future treatment is not needed, but held that the error was harmless as a doctor’s report indicated future medical treatments would not be causally related to Perkins’ work injury.

Anna Godby v. Sylvia M. Groce (NFP)
33A04-1012-MI-779
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct error after granting summary judgment for Groce on her action to quiet title.

Johnathon Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A04-1102-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class C infraction operating a vehicle with expired plates.

Gary L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-248
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to compel an attorney to return documents and unearned fees, holding that the post-conviction court should hold a hearing to determine whether Green’s former attorney has any documents to which Green is entitled and whether the fees retained were unearned.

Dr. Kurt Kessler, M.D. v. Memorial Hospital and Health Care Center, a/k/a Little Company of Mary Hospital of Indiana, Inc., and Dr. Joseph Munning, M.D. (NFP)
51A01-1103-PL-103
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Memorial Hospital and Health Care Center and Dr. Munning on Dr. Kessler’s complaint alleging fraud.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT