ILNews

Opinions Sept. 19, 2011

September 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
John Haegert v. Margaret McMullan
82A04-1008-CT-470
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Margaret McMullan in John Haegert’s action alleging defamation, tortious breach of his employment contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Haegert failed to show how he was injured by the contents of McMullan’s file as his termination was based only upon an incident involving McMullan. There is not properly designated evidence in the record that McMullan intended to cause Haegert emotional distress.

John Haegert v. University of Evansville
82A01-1008-PL-369
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for the University of Evansville in John Haegert’s action alleging that the school’s decision to fire him for violation of its sexual harassment policy was a breach of his tenure contract. The university did not satisfy the burden of proof prior to terminating Haegert’s employment that he had committed sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Vaidik dissents.  

A.J. v. Logansport State Hospital
66A05-1012-MH-805
Mental health. Affirms finding that A.J. is mentally ill and dangerous and the grant of the commitment petition. Logansport State Hospital may be considered a community mental health center for the purpose of satisfying the statutory report requirement; the state’s Exhibit 1 was admissible as it constituted both a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis and a report made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; there was sufficient evidence that A.J. is dangerous; and the trial court’s consideration of competency restoration services and the probability that he will attain competency did not violate his due process rights. Judge Mathias concurs with separate opinion.

John M. Brewer and Susan B. Brewer v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission
49A02-1011-CT-1276
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict ruling against the Brewers on their action for false arrest and excessive force allegedly used against John Brewer during a routine inspection of their bar by the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. Brewer wasn’t prejudiced by the exclusion of his purported expert’s testimony. The excise police had probable cause to arrest Brewer and the trial court acted within its discretion in giving Final Instruction No. 15 to the jury.

Michael R. Flanders v. State of Indiana
48A02-1009-PC-1019
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief in part. Flanders’ trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective. Reveres denial of petition regarding Flanders’ sexually violent predator status. The 2007 amendment that eliminated his eligibility to petition the court for termination of his SVP status is an ex post facto law that is unconstitutional as applied to him. This violation can be remedied by reinstating his eligibility to petition for a change in status after his initial 10-year requirement to register has passed.

Judy Fratter, et al. v. Stanley Rice, Larry Ratts, M.D.

53A04-1101-CT-10
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Rice and Dr. Ratts in a medical malpractice and negligence complaint. Judy Fratter is not entitled to a new trial. The trial court properly read the relatively new Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction that defines “responsible cause” to the jury, rather than the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction regarding proximate cause.

Bruce Stansberry v. State of Indiana
49A04-1102-CR-75
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor attempted resisting law enforcement and remands with instructions. Stansberry’s conviction lacked a finding of proof on the element of resistance, obstruction, or interference. Because the decision to revoke his probation and placement in community corrections was predicated upon this conviction, this ruling must also be reversed.

Vaughn Reeves, Sr. v. State of Indiana
77A01-1012-CR-646
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentences for nine counts of Class C felony aiding, inducing, or causing securities fraud. Concludes that for all nine counts for which Reeves was convicted, evidence of transactions prior to June 30, 2004, was admissible under the common scheme or plan exception to Rule 404(b).

DMS Real Estate, LLC v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Terre Haute, Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1009-PL-617
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the Terre Haute BZA on DMS Real Estate’s petition for writ of certiorari and the denial by the BZA of DMS Real Estate’s special use approval petition.

Dwayne E. Gray v. Safeguard Real Estate Properties (NFP)
49A02-1102-PL-185
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Safeguard Real Estate Properties in Gray’s suit alleging damages to his property by a third party after Safeguard hired them to winterize the vacant property.

J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and T.C. (NFP)
93A02-1102-EX-146
Agency appeal. Reverses Review Board’s reversal of the grant of benefits to J.M.

Macklin Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-PC-331
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Marcus D. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1103-CR-93
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Hunter O. Learning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A04-1102-CR-74
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Evan J. Erickson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1104-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated, enhanced by Erickson’s admission that he is a habitual substance offender.

Jeffrey Dean Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A05-1101-PC-65
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Vernon D. Scott v. David Merchant (NFP)
10A01-1012-CT-639
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of police officer Merchant in Scott’s suit alleging negligence following a car accident.

Kyle J. Bonebright v. Lori A. Bonebright (NFP)
86A03-1104-DR-153
Domestic relation. Affirms interpretation of settlement agreement as transferring to Lori Bonebright the entirety of Kyle Bonebright’s deferred compensation account as of Nov. 4, 2011.

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. 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.

  2. 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.

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

  4. 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.

  5. Agreed on 4th Amendment call - that was just bad policing that resulted in dismissal for repeat offender. What kind of parent names their boy "Kriston"?

ADVERTISEMENT