Main Menu
Posts from June 2009.
Posted in Litigation

In Mosley v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court expressly departed from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that appointed defense counsel may withdraw from “frivolous” criminal appeals, and held that “in any direct criminal appeal as a matter of right, counsel must submit an advocative brief in accordance with Indiana ...

Posted in Litigation

In Ward v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court granted rehearing of its April 7, 2009 decision (see our summary here) affirming Roy Lee Ward’s death sentence for the limited purpose of addressing – and rejecting – a claim that was not expressly addressed in its earlier opinion.

On direct appeal, the Court addressed Ward’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his for-cause ...

Posted in Litigation

In Camm v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed David R. Camm’s three convictions and sentence of life imprisonment without parole for allegedly murdering his wife and two children.  The Court remanded his case for a new trial.

Camm was first convicted of the same charges in 2002, but his conviction was reversed when the Indiana Court of Appeals found that he was prejudiced by the ...

Posted in Litigation

In a 4-1 opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court held that “under Indiana Code § 31-19-9-12(1), to be deemed to have implied his irrevocable consent to an adoption, a putative father must fail to file both a paternity action and a motion to contest the adoption.” 

In Matter of Adoption of Unborn Child of B.W., W.G. v. D.B. and J.B., the Court considered a situation in which an incarcerated ...

Posted in Litigation

Indiana Supreme Court

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear one argument this week.  At 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 2, the Court will hear Matter of N.E. 

In this case, the Marion Superior Court found N.E. to be a child in need of services and imposed a disposition affecting both parents.  On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the father that, although the child was in need of services ...

Posted in Litigation

The Indiana Supreme Court issued three opinions Tuesday addressing criminal law issues.  In Helton v. State, the Court held that a post-conviction petitioner had not met his burden to establish an entitlement to relief.  In Lucio v. State, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a mistrial after a witness inadvertently referred to the defendant’s prior incarceration.  ...

Posted in Litigation

In Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. United States Steel Corporation, the Indiana Supreme Court clarified the standard of review that should apply to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) interpretations of a settlement contract falling within the IURC’s regulatory authority.

In 1999, the IURC issued an order approving a settlement agreement between NIPSCO ...

Posted in Litigation

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear three arguments on Thursday, June 25.

At 9 a.m., the Court will hear McGhee v. State.  The Madison Circuit Court convicted McGhee of incest after he had sex with his 25-year-old niece.  The conviction was based on a confession obtained after a detective told him that his conduct was not criminal if the sex was consensual.  In this opinion, the Indiana Court ...

Posted in Litigation

In Bailey v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that evidence at trial was sufficient to support the criminal convictions of a high school student on counts of battery and disorderly conduct.  The Court also examined what behavior constitutes disorderly conduct under Indiana law. 

In this case, Christopher Bailey was standing in line for breakfast at Perry Meridian High School in ...

Posted in Litigation

On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down two opinions.  Henri v. Curto addressed appellate issue preservation under Trial Rules 50 and 59.  Indiana Department of Revenue v. Kitchin Hospitality addressed whether, before 2007, hotels were entitled to tax exemptions for their utility purchases.

Henri v. Curto

By Ashley Paynter

In Henri v. Curto, the Indiana Supreme Court ...

Posted in Litigation

In addition to Burke v. Bennett (see our summary here), which settled the outcome of the 2007 Terre Haute mayoral election, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down six more opinions on Tuesday, June 16. 

Pruitt v. State – Death Penalty Rehearing

In Pruitt v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court denied Tommy Ray Pruitt’s request for rehearing from the Court’s March 31 decision affirming ...

Posted in Litigation

In this opinion Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Vigo County trial court’s confirmation of Duke Bennett’s election as Mayor of Terre Haute.  The Supreme Court rejected incumbent Kevin Burke’s assertion that Bennett was ineligible for office under the Little Hatch Act, which “applies to the political activities of state and local government ...

Posted in Litigation

In Davidson v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in Indiana law, concluding that where there is an evident boundary between two areas in a dwelling, each area “is not only a part of the whole dwelling, but also a separate structure or enclosed space” for purposes of the crime of residential entry.

In this case, Davidson was cohabitating with ...

Posted in Litigation

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for rehearing of its March 10 opinion in Atterholt v. Herbst.  (Click here for our summary of the original opinion).  In its original opinion, the Court held that "when a claimant seeks excess damages from the Patient's Compensation Fund after obtaining a judgment or settlement from a health care provider in a ...

Posted in Litigation

On Tuesday, June 16, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear argument in three cases.

  • At 9 a.m., the Court will hear Gary Community School Corporation v. Roach-Walker.  Roach-Walker filed an action after she slipped on the School’s sidewalk and fell.  After she presented her case to the jury, the School moved for a directed verdict on grounds that it was entitled to immunity under the Tort ...
Posted in Litigation

In City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court again revisited the gaming license requiring economic development payments in the City of East Chicago, this time addressing what governmental agency had the authority to amend the terms attached to the license. 

In 1996, the Indiana Gaming Commission issued a gaming license to Showboat Marina ...

Posted in Litigation

Addressing an issue of first impression in Indiana law, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday that “circumstances of animal cruelty may create exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of the curtilage,” and that the results of the curtilage search may provide probable cause for a further search of the property.

In Davis v. State, the defendant’s neighbors ...

Facebook, Inc., owners of the popular social networking website Facebook, recently announced that users of the website will be allowed to create personalized URLs for their Facebook pages (i.e., name). There is a significant risk that some users of Facebook will incorporate registered trademarks into their personalized URLs, such as A Facebook user may then post inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate material in connection with the trademark.

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC’s Privacy Team is a multidisciplinary group formed to assist clients in understanding and complying with the increasing number of privacy and security laws and regulations being passed by state and federal government.  Members from Greenebaum’s Privacy Team bring knowledge from a broad range of practice areas including health care, insurance ...

Posted in Litigation

Indiana Supreme Court

On Thursday, June 11, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear argument in two cases.

  • At 9 a.m., the Court will hear Money v. State.  In this case, the defendant pled guilty to a class A felony and to being an habitual offender in a “blind plea.”  Later, Money petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to advise him ...
Posted in Litigation

This week, in Lacava v. Lacava, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the application of statutes of limitation to repressed-memory molestation claims. 

Proceedings in Lacava began in 2005, when the plaintiffs sued their father for damages arising out of the alleged molestation of them when they were minors. Although the complaint was filed after the presumptive statute of ...

Posted in Litigation

In Bonner v. Daniels, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the Indiana Constitution “does not mandate any judicially enforceable standard of quality, and that to the extent that an individual student has a right, entitlement, or privilege to pursue public education, this derives from the enactments of the General Assembly, not from the Indiana Constitution.”

Justice Dickson ...

Under the 1976 Copyright Act as amended (title 17 of the United States Code), a work is protected by copyright from the time it is created in a fixed form. In other words, when a work is written down or otherwise set into tangible form, the copyright immediately becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author or those deriving their rights from the author can rightfully claim copyright. Although the general rule is that the person who creates a work is the author of that work, there is an exception to that principle: the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer or commissioning party, and not the employee or commissioned party, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual.

Earlier this week, social networking giant Facebook, Inc. announced that it will allow its users to create personalized web addresses (URLs) for their profile pages. This decision poses great risk to corporations, their brands, and their trademarks.

Posted in Litigation

In a pair of opinions last week, the Indiana Supreme Court held that “under existing unambiguous law a license plate – be it temporary or permanent – must be mounted [outside the vehicle] and illuminated [and visible from a distance of 50 feet] as provided by” Indiana Code sections 9-18-2-26 and 9-19-6-4.

The Court reached this holding in Meredith v. State, in which it concluded ...

If the market for your product or technology is global, it’s likely that you will consider applying for patent protection in several countries. Multiple filings, however, can cost thousands of dollars; and what if the foreign market fails to develop? Obviously, it would be preferable to put your company’s capital where it counts most. By filing a single international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a U.S. applicant can postpone the need to file in most foreign countries for up to thirty (30) months. This may be time enough for corresponding foreign markets to take shape. This article summarizes the steps in an international PCT application, by which one may seek patent protection simultaneously in as many as 115 countries around the world through a single initial filing.

When one enters a search query into the search engine of one’s choice, a number of results populate the screen. This happens millions of times a day in this country. But what happens when the search results lead you to a website that is using or has posted your company’s copyrighted material, whether it be written content, photographs, artwork, or the like? Such materials are often in the form of digital files, which are readily copied and transferred across the Internet. Often, the owners of such infringing websites are seemingly unidentifiable, making any direct legal action impossible. As a copyright owner, what are your options to combat this growing trend of online renegades?



Recent Posts




Back to Page