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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT