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

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT