ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2010

September 7, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hatter, et al. v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
49A02-0907-CV-659
Civil. Affirms jury trial and verdict in favor of Pierce Manufacturing in the Hatters’ product liability action. Hatter failed to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges and has not shown both of his challenges for cause were improperly denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the giving of jury instructions or in excluding evidence and did not err by denying Hatter’s partial motion for judgment on the evidence.

Rod L. Avery and Marshall K. Avery v. Trina R. Avery
49A05-1004-PL-320
Civil plenary. Affirms default judgment entered against Rod and Marshall Avery in a will contest initiated by Trina Avery. Holds that a will contest is a civil action and that a defendant in a will contest is required to file an answer or otherwise plead to a complaint as provided in the trial rules.

Jeff Koehlinger, et al. v. State Lottery Commission of Indiana
49A02-1003-CT-247
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment to the lottery on its claim that appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Affirms summary judgment for the lottery on the appellants’ tort, Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and quasi-contractual claims. Reverses summary judgment on the contract rescission claim and remands for trial on the issue of detrimental reliance. Judge Riley dissents in part.

Larry Rodts v. Heart City Automotive, Inc.
20A04-1004-CT-249
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Heart City in Rodt’s breach of contract and wage payment claims. There are no genuine issues of material fact, Rodts’ oral contract is unenforceable, and his deferred compensation was not a wage.

Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify self. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Haneef S. Jackson-Bey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-36
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

Umarex Sportwaffen GMBH, et al. v. Toyriffic, LLC d/b/a Hobbytron.com (NFP)
29A05-1001-PL-28
Civil plenary. Affirms order setting aside default on Umarex and other plaintiffs’ claim against Toyriffic for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, conversion, forgery, counterfeiting, and deception.

Theodore Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-0911-CR-674
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Mark Hendrickson, et al. v. Joseph Potetz, et al. (NFP)
87A01-1002-CT-111
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Coinmach Holdings in a wrongful death complaint.

Phillip J. Camp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dewan D. Burnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

John Chupp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-PC-683
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands to the post-conviction court the issue of Chupp’s robbery conviction and directs the court to enter judgment of conviction as a Class C felony and sentence accordingly.

James D. Schregardus v. OH Retail, LL, LLC (NFP)
49A05-1002-PL-156
Civil plenary. Dismisses Schregardus’ appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Declines to award damages under Appellate Rule 66(E).

Salaheddin A. Alfaqeer d/b/a Tobacco Zone v. LOR Corp. (NFP)
49A04-1003-CC-213
Civil collection. Reverses denial of Alfaqeer’s motion to set aside judgment. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.M.; A.M. v. I.D.C.S. and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A04-1001-JT-116
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted 3 transfers and denied transfer to 18 cases for the week ending Sept. 3.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT