ILNews

Opinions Sept. 15, 2011

September 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cheryl A. Burns v. Orthoteck Inc. Employees’ Pension Plan and Trust, et al.
10-1521
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms finding that Cheryl Burns’ consent to designate her husband’s three sons as beneficiaries was valid and affirms the denial of her claim for benefits. The unusual circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that the pension plan was within its discretion to find that Dr. Burns, as plan representative, verified the authenticity of his wife’s signature on the written consent form and this satisfied 29 U.S.C. 1055’s witness requirement. The plan was also within its discretion to deny Burns’ claim for benefits.

Indiana Supreme Court
Mary Beth Lucas and Perry Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-MH-1
28S01-1102-CV-78
Civil. Affirms denial of the Lucases’ request for a jury trial on their defenses and claims in a foreclosure action. The borrowers’ claims and defenses shall be tried in equity because the core legal questions presented by the borrowers’ defenses and claims are significantly intertwined with the subject matter of the foreclosure. Justices Dickson and Rucker dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Frederick R. Lucas v. Darrin McDonald
63A04-1010-PL-644
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of verified petition for relief from lifetime sex-offender registration requirement. Lucas did not meet his burden of proving that the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of all the facts and circumstances of his case.

Board of Works of the City of Lake Station, Indiana, et al. v. I.A.E., Inc., Consulting Engineers
45A03-1007-CP-369
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict and the trial court’s rulings in favor of I.A.E. Consulting Engineering in its suit seeking payment from Lake Station on money owed for work completed. There is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that I.A.E. didn’t make a business decision in 1994 to quit working on the project.  Remands with instructions for the trial court to recalculate the prejudgment interest award, using simple interest from the date of I.A.E.’s demand.

City of Jeffersonville, Indiana and City of Jeffersonville Sanitary Sewer Board v. Environmental Management Corporation
10A01-1005-PL-217
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part regarding EMC’s complaint stemming from Jeffersonville’s attempt to take over the sewer system. The city did not provide sufficient notice to EMC 90 days before terminating the contract. Reverses summary judgment for EMC on its Open Door claims because EMC should have known that the letters in question were not authorized at a public meeting. Affirms the finding that the city is in contempt of the agreed entry. Remands with instructions to modify the award of attorney fees to reflect only the amount EMC incurred in relation to its contempt complaint and the award of costs to only reflect EMC’s filing fees and statutory witness fees. Affirms reducing EMC’s corporate support expenses from its losses during the calculation of EMC’s damages.

National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
49A02-1012-CT-1289
Civil tort. Reverses grant of Ernst & Young’s second motion for summary judgment on National Wine and Spirits’ action for fraud and deception. The successive motion was proper, but there are genuine issues of material fact and res judicata doesn’t bar National Wine and Spirits’ claims.

Kathryn M. Richardson v. Todd E. Richardson (NFP)
49A05-1101-DR-28
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of Todd Richardson’s post-dissolution petition to enforce a settlement agreement and the denial of Kathryn Richardson’s motion to correct error.

Linzy C. Motton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1012-CR-1440
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.S. and A.S.; A.L. v. IDCS (NFP)
49A02-1102-JT-206
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Cordaro Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1012-CR-1410
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony.

Every Meadows LLC v. McKnight Excavating Inc., and Chad McKnight (NFP)
30A01-1012-PL-650
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Every Meadows’ motion to correct error.

Addison Pijnapples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A05-1008-CR-510
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.T.; K.K.T. v. IDCS (NFP)
71A02-1103-JT-313
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Ronnie Harness v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1012-CR-770
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting.

Brent Turner v. Jody (Turner) Bruce (NFP)
30A01-1102-DR-61
Domestic relation. Reverses order finding Brent Turner’s son partially emancipated. Affirms holding Turner in contempt for nonpayment of child support, and that he pay attorney fees to Jody Turner Bruce.

Torrien Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1300
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Michael J. Stohler v. Mary Anne Stohler (NFP)
48A04-1101-DR-51
Domestic relation. Affirms determination of Michael Stohler’s income and the apportioning of daughter’s educational expenses. Reverses the apportioning liability for son’s college expenses and educational tax credits received by Mary Anne Stohler. Remands with instructions.  

Timothy L. Hahn v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A04-1103-PC-176
Post conviction. Reverses summary dismissal of petition for post-conviction relief.

Mitchell Lynn v. Janet S. Greer and James L. Greer (NFP)
45A05-1102-PL-83
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of the Greers’ motion for judgment on the evidence.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.M. and M.M.; T.H. & A.A.M., Sr. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1101-JT-67
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Adrian F. Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-PC-348
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT