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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT