ILNews

Opinions Oct. 7, 2013

October 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions, Oct. 7, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals

The Estate of Richard A. Mayer, and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco
37A03-1207-PL-323
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Reverses denial of summary judgment to the Estate and Spangler Jennings on claims for negligent supervision and/or retention, tortious interference with a business relationship, and tortious interference with a contract, and directs that summary judgment be entered in the estate’s and Spangler Jennings’s favor on those claims. Reverses denial of summary judgment to Spangler Jennings on the defamation claim and directs that summary judgment be entered in its favor on that claim. Reverses the denial of summary judgment to the estate regarding Lax and Lasco’s seeking punitive damages against it and direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the estate on that claim. Affirms the granting of summary judgment in the estate’s favor on the defamation and malicious prosecution claims. Affirms denial of summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim against Spangler Jennings and the denial of summary judgment on the abuse of process claim to both the estate and Spangler Jennings. Affirms the denial of summary judgment in favor of Spangler Jennings on punitive damages.

Dorian Gray Jackson v. State of Indiana

20A05-1210-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms convictions for possession of a narcotic with intent to deliver as a Class A felony, two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug as Class B felonies and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. Finds intervening circumstances –
rather than the GPS device police had attached to the suspect’s car without a warrant – led to the traffic stop and discovery of the illegal drugs. Concludes the circumstances were sufficient to remove any taint from any police illegality.

Daniel B. Buffkin v. Glacier Group
79A02-1302-PL-141
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of temporary injunction to enforce terms of an employment non-competition clause, holding that the activities prohibited and the geographic restraints Glacier Group sought to place on terminated contractor Daniel Buffkin were unreasonable, rendering that part of the agreement unenforceable. Remands for further proceedings.

Marie Castner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1302-CR-44
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.I. v. Midtown CMHC (NFP)
49A05-1304-MH-146
Mental Health. Affirms order for temporary commitment.

Michael Morrisey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Morrisey’s community corrections placement.
 
Robert Walke and Karen Walke v. Kitley Law Office, P.C., (NFP)
49A02-1304-CT-291
Civil Tort. Affirms granting summary judgment in favor of Kitley.

Gordon B. Dempsey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
49A02-1303-PL-218
Civil Plenary. Affirms Chase’s motion for summary judgment. Reverses the award of $141,545.21 in attorney’s fees and costs, and remands for further proceedings to ensure the court’s award does not improperly overlap with the award of attorney’s fees in federal court.  

In Re: The Paternity of J.K., A.K. v. T.L. (NFP)
02A03-1301-JP-12
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms denial of Father’s (A.K.) petition to modify custody of his daughter (J.K.).  

In Re The Paternity of I.B., K.H. v. I.B. b/n/f L.B. (NFP)
34A02-1305-JP-401
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms order that, among other things, directed father (K.H.) to pay child support and $1,200 of the mother’s (L.B.) attorney fees.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court did not release opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not release Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT