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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT