Indiana Court of Appeals
Randy Rogers v. State of Indiana
18A-CR-3023
Criminal. Affirms Randy Rogers’ conviction in Marion Superior Court of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, finding that text messages sent for his phone to his victim were properly admitted as evidence in his bench trial.
The following 7th Circuit Court opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday.
Damon Stepp v. Covance, Inc.
18-3292
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Vacates the entry of summary judgement in favor of Covance, Inc. against Damon Stepp in his retaliation and discrimination lawsuit. Finds a reasonable jury could conclude that Covance refused to promote Stepp to permanent status because of his complaints. Remands.
Although sympathetic toward a couple who bought an RV riddled with problems, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an award of judgment for the RV’s manufacturer after finding no breach of the warranty or its provisions.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a man’s lawsuit alleging his former employer refused to hire him permanently in retaliation of prior discriminatory complaints he filed.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Samantha L. Lotaki v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-376
Criminal. Affirms Samantha Lotaki’s conviction of Class B Misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support her conviction in St. Joseph Superior Court. Judge Patricia Riley concurs in result with separate opinion.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Steve Snyder, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kimberly Snyder, Deceased v. Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc.; Humana Insurance Company; and St. Joseph Regional Medical Center
18A-CT-03112
Civil tort. Affirms the St. Joseph County Superior Court’s dismissal of wrongful death claims brought against Humana by Steve Snyder, as personal representative of Kimberly Snyder’s estate, and the court’s award of summary judgment for St. Joseph Regional Medical Center and Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc. Finds the trial court did not err by striking the affidavits of the estate’s untimely disclosed expert witnesses. Also finds no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the element of causation and that the estate’s claims against Humana Insurance Company are pre-empted by federal law governing Medicare Part C.
A man who followed a woman by car from Valparaiso to Warsaw has lost an appeal of his conviction and sentence for stalking. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected his right-to-travel jury instruction arguments as well as his challenge to the evidence against him.
Judgments in favor of a hospital, insurance company and ambulance provider were affirmed Thursday in a wrongful death suit brought by a cystic fibrosis patient’s late husband. The woman died from pneumonia after a prolonged ambulance ride toward a lung transplant that ended up at the wrong hospital.
A man convicted of possessing several grams of meth has lost his appeal to suppress evidence found at his fast food workplace after an anonymous caller alerted authorities. But a concurring judge used the case to “state the obvious” and remind Hoosiers of their right not to talk to police in similar circumstances.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Pedro Rayo Zagal v. State of Indiana
19A-PC-694
Post-conviction. Affirms the denial of Pedro Rayo Zagal’s post-conviction relief petition by Elkhart Superior Court for ineffective counsel. Finds Zagal read and signed the advisement of rights and penalties at his initial hearing, which included the provision that if he was convicted of a crime as an illegal alien, he could be deported. Also finds that under Indiana Supreme Court precedent, the trial attorney did not have to separately advise Zagal of the immigration consequences.
An Elkhart County man who pleaded guilty to drug charges but successfully met certain conditions to avoid a felony conviction is still facing deportation after the Indiana Court of Appeals found his initials on the advisement were enough to indicate he understood the immigration consequences.
In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court notified Tennessee that it was last call for the state’s liquor sales residency requirement — a law similar to statutes on Indiana’s books.
Read Indiana appellate court decisions from the most recent reporting period.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals United States of America v. Joseph A. Williams 18-2662 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Jon E. DeGuilio. Criminal. Affirms Joseph Williams’ 188-month sentence for conviction of possessing a gun as a felon and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute […]
A widower may pursue excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund upon the Indiana Court of Appeals’ finding that nothing in the Medical Malpractice Act requires him to accept a settlement offer from the doctor he alleged was responsible for his wife’s death.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has partially affirmed a ruling against an automotive maintenance company in a breach of contract dispute with its landlord, while reversing in the company’s favor on its malicious prosecution claims.
A northern Indiana woman may find some relief after the Northern District Court reversed and remanded the denial of her appeal for supplemental security income.
Despite recent changes to the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct meant to aid pro se litigants’ ability to be heard in court, an appellate panel ruled Friday that an inmate’s suit against a judge, a clerk and others was so confusing and repetitive that it was rightly dismissed.
A man convicted of Level 1 felony child molesting and sentenced to 48 years in prison failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his victim’s medical report was improperly admitted or that her testimony was incredibly dubious.
The question of whether an armed robber can be said to have physically restrained his victims as an enhancement under federal sentencing guidelines split the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. The ruling also deepened a wide circuit split on the issue, with judges answering the question by employing a classic legal maxim: It depends.