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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT