ILNews

Opinions Oct. 1, 2010

October 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday.
Indiana Supreme Court
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Genevieve M. Kephart
31S01-0909-CV-403
Civil. Reverses trial court denial of Caesar’s motion to dismiss Kephart’s counterclaim under Trial Rule 12 (B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Holds that no common law right exists for patrons to recover damages for casino gambling losses. Justice Boehm concurs in result and Justice Dickson dissents.

Sheehan Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al.
49S02-1001-CV-32
Civil. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurers on grounds that there was no damage to the property and thus there was no “occurrence” or “property damage” and remands for further proceedings. Faulty workmanship may constitute an accident and thus an occurrence depending on the facts under a standard commercial general liability insurance policy. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Sullivan dissent.

State of Indiana v. James S. Hobbs, IV
19S01-1001-CR-10
Criminal. Reverses trial court finding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and the consequent suppression of the fruits of the search. Hobbs’ car was an operational vehicle in a public place, the dog sniff wasn’t conducted under circumstances where Hobbs was unconstitutionally seized and the dog  sniff provided probable cause that the car contained evidence of a crime. Justice Sullivan dissents in which Justice Rucker joins.

Thomas P. Donovan v. Grant Victoria Casino & Resort, L.P.
49S02-1003-CV-124
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the casino on Donovan’s breach-of-contract claim and declaratory judgment that the casino can’t exclude him for counting cards. The long-standing common law right of private property owners extends to the operator of a riverboat casino that wishes to exclude a patron for employing strategies designed to give the patron a statistical advantage over the casino. The Riverboat Gambling Act, which gives the Indiana Gaming Commission exclusive authority to set the rules of licensed casino games, does not abrogate this common law right. Justice Dickson dissents.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Annex Books, Inc., et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind.
09-4156
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms preliminary injunction of ordinance requiring adult bookstores to be closed certain hours. The single article introduced by Indianapolis didn’t support its argument and the evidence of arrest data near the plaintiffs’ store appears to support the plaintiffs.

United States of America v. Charles Suggs
09-2700
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal.  Affirms District Court’s application at sentencing of a four-level increase for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense after Suggs pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The District Court could reasonably conclude that Suggs grasped the handgun while resisting officers, ignored their orders, and that his grasp on the handgun without telling officers about his gun implied an intent to bring it forth and use it in some manner.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lawrence Terrell Davis v. State of Indiana
45A04-1002-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony auto theft, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and for being a habitual offender. Davis failed to show that the trial court failed to give him the required advisement that by waiving his right to a jury trial on the underlying offenses that he also waived his right to a jury trial in the habitual offender phase. Remands with instructions to enter a habitual offender enhancement that is consistent with the opinion.

Gary S. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1001-CR-31
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Cory A. Waltmire v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1002-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms sentences following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony reckless homicide.

Daniel L. Lannen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1004-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

Corey Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT