ILNews

Opinions Sept. 3, 2010

September 3, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Trent L. Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors Inc.
09-1347
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Reverses denial of Fort-Rohr’s motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury found in Chapin’s favor in his retaliation suit. Fort-Rohr was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Chapin did not produce sufficient evidence to support an actual or constructive discharge.

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Anonymous
No. 10S00-1006-DI-288
Discipline. The high court privately reprimands a Clark County attorney for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 5.5(a) for assisting in the unauthorized practice of law in this state. Respondent agreed to serve as local counsel for Kentucky attorney John Redelberger who represented an Indiana client. Once in court, the judge informed Respondent that Redelberger was not licensed to practice law in Indiana. Respondent told Redelberger he must seek temporary admission and sent Redelberger a copy of the applicable rule; however neither followed through on obtaining temporary admission. The Supreme Court noted that Indiana attorneys serving as local counsel for out-of-state attorneys are hereby advised of the importance of their duty to ensure complete and timely compliance with all the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2).

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Unsupervised Estate of Judith E. Phillips v. Rainer Assmann (NFP)
40A05-1001-EU-33
Estate, Unsupervised. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of Assmann for $34,514.04, concluding it did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the competence of Assmann’s testimony under the Dead Man’s Statute.

Daniel E. Hoagland, et al. v. Dorothy H. Mosier, et al. (NFP)
76A03-0911-CV-521
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment approving a signed memorandum of agreement and quieting title to each party’s lot.

Ahmed Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms trial court order that Bellamy serve the remainder of his outstanding sentence imposed after his probation revocation.

The following opion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.

Indiana Tax Court
6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. John R. Scott, Assessor of Porter County
No. 49T10-0906-TA-27
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination that Local 6787’s banquet facility is not predominately used for education or charitable purposes and therefore is 100 percent taxable.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT