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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT