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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT