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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT