Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 6 today (and 5 NFP)
For publication opinions today (6):
In Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana, a 27-page opinion, Judge Najam concludes:
The trial court correctly entered summary judgment that Dave’s is liable to the City for breach of the construction contract. Dave’s breached the construction contract when it refused to return to work after receiving orders to do so. The court also correctly entered summary judgment that Liberty Mutual is liable to the City for Dave’s’ breach as surety on the performance bond. The City complied with its obligations under the performance bond. Moreover, Liberty Mutual specifically directed the City to mitigate its damages, which it did by hiring another contractor to complete the Project. Finally, Liberty Mutual has not shown that the City failed to comply with the contract in seeking attorney’s fees, and the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment for the City on that issue. Affirmed.In Anthony J. Rehl, Sr. and Bessie A. Rehl v. Robert V. Billetz and Joy A. Billetz, a 13-page opinion by Judge Brown, the panel affirms the judgment of the trial court in favor of Robert and Joy Billetz regarding an access easement.
In Daniel E. Serban v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
In this case, a highly-respected attorney took an unfortunate turn down a criminal path, stealing more than $200,000 from over one hundred clients who had placed their trust in him and to whom he owed immense fiduciary duties. He requests that we revise the eleven-year sentence that was imposed after he pleaded guilty to Corrupt Business Influence,1 a class C felony; and Theft,2 a class D felony. Insofar as stealing from his clients injured not only the clients, but also the legal profession into which the public should be able to place its trust, we emphasize the gravity of these offenses. Moreover, this attorney used his professional accomplishments to place himself in a position of trust so that he could victimize his clients. Accordingly, we decline to revise his sentence.In Nicholas Williams v. State of Indiana, a 15-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Appellant-defendant Daniel E. Serban appeals his eleven-year aggregate sentence, arguing that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Finding that Serban has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate and noting that the State did not cross-appeal for a longer sentence, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
It seems obvious that the confidentiality provisions of Indiana Code Section 35-48-7-11.1 were enacted to uphold the protections of the physician-patient privilege and the pharmacist-patient privilege. Where, as here, a patient seeks to waive those privileges for the purpose of exercising his or her constitutional right to present a complete defense to charges in a criminal case, both the rationale for and the [Indiana Board ofPharmacy's] interest in keeping the patient's prescription records confidential evaporate. * * * Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Board‟s motion to quash Williams‟s subpoena and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (2):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 11, 2012 10:29 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions