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. Bill Satterlee is, indeed, a true jazz aficionado. Part of my legal career was spent as an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso. Bill was instrumental (no pun intended) in introducing me to jazz music, thereby fostering my love for this genre. We would, occasionally, travel to Chicago on weekends and sit in on some outstanding jazz sessions at Andy's on Hubbard Street. Had it not been for Bill's love of jazz music, I never would have had the good fortune of hearing it played live at Andy's. And, most likely, I might never have begun listening to it as much as I do. Thanks, Bill.

  2. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

  3. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

  4. Indiana up holds this behavior. the state police know they got it made.

  5. Additional Points: -Civility in the profession: Treating others with respect will not only move others to respect you, it will show a shared respect for the legal system we are all sworn to protect. When attorneys engage in unnecessary personal attacks, they lose the respect and favor of judges, jurors, the person being attacked, and others witnessing or reading the communication. It's not always easy to put anger aside, but if you don't, you will lose respect, credibility, cases, clients & jobs or job opportunities. -Read Rule 22 of the Admission & Discipline Rules. Capture that spirit and apply those principles in your daily work. -Strive to represent clients in a manner that communicates the importance you place on the legal matter you're privileged to handle for them. -There are good lawyers of all ages, but no one is perfect. Older lawyers can learn valuable skills from younger lawyers who tend to be more adept with new technologies that can improve work quality and speed. Older lawyers have already tackled more legal issues and worked through more of the problems encountered when representing clients on various types of legal matters. If there's mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other, it will help make both attorneys better lawyers. -Erosion of the public trust in lawyers wears down public confidence in the rule of law. Always keep your duty to the profession in mind. -You can learn so much by asking questions & actively listening to instructions and advice from more experienced attorneys, regardless of how many years or decades you've each practiced law. Don't miss out on that chance.

ADVERTISEMENT