ILNews

Opinions Sept. 11, 2013

September 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
David Hughes v. Kore of Indiana Enterprise Inc., et al.
13-8018
Civil. Reverses decertification of a class action, finding the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, did not provide adequate grounds for the ruling, and remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kari Everhart v. Founders Insurance Company
84A01-1303-PL-128
Civil Plenary. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Founders and its denial of Everhart’s motion to correct error. Rules Everhart’s description of the bar fight that left her with a broken arm fit the state’s definition of battery. Since Founders’ policy included an exception for injuries resulting from assault and/or battery, the court found the insurance company could deny coverage.

Donovan Johnson and Aileen Johnson v. Poindexter Transport, Inc., and Crane Service
49A02-1212-CT-1027
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order to grant Poindexter’s motion to dismiss. Finds several factors identified the Poindexter’s crane operator as a borrowed employee of the general contractor, R.L. Turner. This makes Johnson and the crane operator co-employees and limits Johnson to seeking remedy only under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Jane Kleaving v. State of Indiana (NFP)
74A04-1209-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms conviction for conspiracy to commit murder as a Class A felony.

Ronald D. Hayes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1302-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order for Hayes to serve his previously suspended two-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Yohau Flame v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-121
Criminal. Affirms conviction after a jury trial of rape and criminal deviate conduct, each as a Class A felony, two counts of criminal confinement and one count of attempted robbery, each as a Class B felony, and one count of auto theft, as a Class D felony.

Dewayne Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-162
Criminal. Affirms conviction for felony murder. Reverses and remands with instructions that the trial court vacate Perry’s conviction of and one-day sentence for Class A felony robbery. Perry argued the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by entering convictions for both robbery and felony murder with robbery as the underlying felony. The state did not oppose Perry’s claim, conceding that there is a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts were used to establish the essential elements for the robbery charge and the underlying felony for the felony murder charge.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT