ILNews

Opinions Nov. 4, 2013

November 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Christian Serino v. Alec Hensley and City of Oakland City, Indiana
13-1058
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Serino’s lawsuit for federal claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution and Indiana tort claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Serino’s claims are time-barred; his federal malicious prosecution claim failed to state a constitutional violation independent of his time-barred false arrest claim, and his state law claims for malicious prosecution and IIED were barred by the defendants’ immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Brownsburg Station Partners LLC
32A01-1209-CC-438
Civil collections. Reverses a ruling in favor of Brownsburg Station, holding that the trial court erred when it denied Claire’s motion for summary judgment. Claire’s was allowed under a co-tenancy provision of its lease to terminate the agreement if vacancy rates in certain buildings fell below 70 percent. The trial court erred when it determined that Claire’s violated the lease because the total amount of relevant space vacant was not below 70 percent. Remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Claire’s.

Gregory A. Harris v. State of Indiana
39A05-1205-CR-239
Criminal. On rehearing, affirms its prior ruling upholding the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a charge of sexual misconduct with a minor on which a jury was hung based on the same facts constituting a rape charge on which Harris was acquitted. Also reaffirms the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion to amend the charging information against Harris. The court declined to find double-jeopardy violations as a result of the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013).

Robert M. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1303-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of criminal confinement, Class B felonies.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. 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.

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT