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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT