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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT