Monday, September 21, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 2 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (3):
In D & D NAPA, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, a 23-page opinion, Judge Brown concludes:
Based upon the record and the considerations discussed above, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in concluding that D & D acquired Chaffins’s NAPA retail auto parts sales business and did not acquire the service center portion of Chaffins’s business and thus that D & D made a partial acquisition of Chaffins’s business.In James Whittaker v. Wilma Sharlene Whittaker , a 9-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
James Whittaker (“Husband”) filed a petition seeking to have his ex-wife, Wilma Whittaker (“Wife”) held in contempt of court for her failure to pay sums designated as maintenance in a settlement incorporated into a dissolution decree. The trial court concluded that Wife owed Husband a fixed sum of $76,173.44, as of June 25, 2013, enforceable by execution but not contempt. Husband presents the sole, consolidated issue of whether the trial court reached an erroneous legal conclusion as to enforcement remedies. We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to address the merits of Husband’s petition for contempt.In Carlos I. Nunez v. State of Indiana, a 9-page opinion, Sr. Judge Shepard writes:
By both law and practice, American courts have long been especially concerned that criminal defendants not give up various rights by virtue of being misled or uninformed or threatened. Here, the question is whether a conviction must be set aside because the defendant who was asking to waive trial by jury did not tell the trial judge that his request was voluntary. * * *NFP civil decisions today (1):
Nunez presents the issue on appeal this way: whether the trial court wrongly accepted his waiver because it was not voluntary and intelligent. * * *
In this case, the straightforward claim is that Nunez did not affirmatively tell the trial court that his decision to waive was voluntary and intelligent. Like the Sixth Circuit, we conclude that an appellant unable to point to actual evidence of some miscarriage like ignorance or coercion cannot prevail on direct appeal. See U.S. v. Sammons, 918 F.2d 592, 597 (6th Cir. 1990). * * *
If there is actually any evidence that Nunez’s waiver was the product of coercion or improper inducements, Indiana courts are open to receive it.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court.
NFP criminal decisions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 21, 2015 12:51 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions