Larry J. McKinney

This case arises from the collapse of OCMC, a telecommunications company, and involves claims by Meridian Financial Advisors against former OCMC President and CEO Joseph Pence and related parties over the transfer of OCMC's Adult Chat and Fat Finger Businesses to entities controlled by former employee Martin Scott Hall. Pence moved for summary judgment on Meridian's claims under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act (including conversion, theft, and computer tampering) as well as tortious interference and unfair competition. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims such as those based on computer tampering for lack of sufficient evidence or overly broad statutory application, and denied it in part, allowing certain conversion, theft, and related claims to proceed where factual disputes existed regarding Pence's role, authorization of the transfers, and potential damages. The decision turned on analysis of evidence from the record, including board actions, officer conduct, and statutory requirements under Indiana law.

business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a class action lawsuit by Jon Batchelor challenging the Putnam County Jail's policy of performing visual strip searches on all pretrial detainees during intake without any individualized reasonable suspicion that they were hiding weapons or contraband. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of defendant Sheriff Fenwick on all claims. The court's core reasoning was that the jail's policy and its application to Batchelor were justified under the circumstances, including the nature of his arrest for a felony DUI, his visible intoxication, his prior arrests reflected in jail records, and broader institutional security needs.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerned defendant Tyler Sanders' motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a September 2009 search warrant, along with a request for a Franks hearing. The court held the hearing and granted the motion after finding that the detective's affidavit supporting the warrant omitted material facts and failed to establish probable cause, as it did not sufficiently connect the suspected cocaine dealing to the home at 515 N. College or provide adequate basis to rely on the confidential informant's tip. The court further determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because a reasonable officer would not have relied on the affidavit. As a result, the court ordered suppression of the drugs, cash, vehicles, and other items directly obtained from the search.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Noble Roman's, an Indiana-based franchisor, suing French Baguette, J. Peaceful, and individual defendant Chami over a terminated franchise agreement for a pizza restaurant in Florida, with claims including trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and defamation per se based on alleged continued use of the Noble Roman's mark and related activities after termination. The court denied Chami's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that his execution of the franchise and confidentiality agreements created sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana. The court granted J. Peaceful's motion to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim, reasoning that J. Peaceful had assigned all rights and responsibilities under the franchise agreement to French Baguette and that the complaint's allegations did not plausibly link J. Peaceful to the post-termination conduct or establish its direct involvement in using the trademark.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Pulse Engineering, Inc., as successor to GTI Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage for defense costs and environmental cleanup at a former manufacturing site in Indiana under multiple comprehensive general liability policies issued between 1966 and 1981 by insurers including Travelers, INA, North River, and others. The insurers are incorporated or have principal places of business in states such as Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California, while GTI had operations across several states including Pennsylvania and Indiana. After removal to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the threshold issue of choice of law. The court held that Indiana law governs the dispute, applying the most-significant-relationship test and following the precedent in Standard Fusee Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., because the Indiana site is the risk property at issue, Indiana bears the primary interest in remediation and environmental protection, and the interests of other states are comparatively remote.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

This case involved the United States and several states and environmental groups suing Cinergy Corp. and related utilities for violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements at coal-fired power plants in Indiana and Ohio, as well as breaching a 1998 administrative order and Ohio's state implementation plan limits on particulate matter emissions at the Beckjord plant. A prior summary judgment ruling and a jury trial established that Cinergy had performed major modifications on several boiler units at the Wabash River plant without obtaining required permits, resulting in projected increases of 40 tons or more in SO2 and NOx emissions. After a bench trial on remedies, the court ordered Cinergy to shut down the affected Wabash River units by September 30, 2009, pay civil penalties totaling over $1.9 million for the NSR violations plus $687,500 for the particulate matter violations, install continuous emissions monitors, and surrender SO2 emission allowances equivalent to excess emissions from the projects.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, in which the Reeds alleged that a debt-collection letter sent by AID Associates, Inc. (Plaza) was false because it demanded payment of a debt discharged in bankruptcy. After the parties waived a jury, the court ruled on pending motions in limine and clarified the burdens of proof. The court held that the Reeds must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the letter would deceive or mislead an unsophisticated but reasonable consumer. On the bona fide error defense, Plaza must show that any violation was unintentional, occurred in good faith, and resulted despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error. The court also addressed the potential relevance of the Reeds’ prior FDCPA lawsuits and the role of survey evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 2004 nuisance abatement action by City of Kokomo officials at plaintiff Roger McConnell's properties, where inspectors and police entered both an empty lot and McConnell's adjacent residence, leading to a confrontation in which McConnell was tased, arrested, and his properties cleaned up. McConnell sued various city officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims including unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, battery, and trespass. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims except one, dismissing the false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force claims because officers had probable cause to arrest McConnell for disorderly conduct and used reasonable force. The surviving claim is the § 1983 unlawful search and seizure claim against the mayor and police officers in their individual capacities, based on the fact that the abatement notice and order applied only to the empty lot at 2100 South Lafountain Street and provided no authority to enter the separate residence without a warrant. The court reasoned that the officials lacked consent or other legal justification for entering the home, while the arrest and force were supported by McConnell's threats and resistance.

civil rightscriminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerns U.S. Patent No. 5,287,270, which describes a billing system allowing service customers to receive and manipulate transaction records and preprocessed summary reports on personal computers. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement with respect to the claim term “as specified by the user,” and also sought a stay. The court denied the summary judgment motion, concluding that the patent specification, prior claim language, references to user-specific reports, and expert testimony provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find the § 112 requirements satisfied. As a result, the motion to stay was denied as moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case Prange v. Astrue involved plaintiff Edgar Prange seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming disability from congestive heart failure and anxiety following pacemaker and defibrillator implantation. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision that Prange was not disabled. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including medical history and vocational expert testimony regarding Prange's ability to perform light work, and there was no error in the ALJ's handling of the vocational expert's assessment of Prange's functional capacity or past relevant work.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling in an adversary proceeding where the debtor, John Beale, sought to discharge in Chapter 7 a debt to his ex-wife, Catherine Kurtz, stemming from their 2005 Property Settlement Agreement and a subsequent vehicle trade-in arrangement. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the debt was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to facts, concluding that the debt arose in connection with the divorce decree, that exceptions to discharge in divorce contexts are construed liberally in favor of the creditor, and that Beale did not meet his burden to show inability to pay or that discharge benefits outweighed harm to Kurtz based on evidence of incomes, assets, and circumstances.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns the construction of claims in two patents held by plaintiffs Magarl, L.L.C. and Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc. (the '015 and '936 patents), which describe fail-safe proportional mixing valves for combining hot and cold fluids with mechanisms to restrict flow if temperatures exceed set points. Defendants Crane Co., Mark Controls, Watts Water Technologies Inc., and Sloan Valve Company are involved in the litigation over these patents. Following Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents in Markman and Phillips, the district court issued a definitive order construing multiple disputed terms, including "mixing chamber," "means for substantially restricting," "shuttle," "normal operating condition," and "failure condition," based on the patent specifications, claim language, and ordinary meanings. The court also addressed related elements like biasing means and flow passageways to clarify the scope of the asserted claims for subsequent proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns the construction of disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,287,270, which covers a system allowing service customers (such as telecommunications users) to store, display, and analyze billing and transaction records on personal computers. The parties briefed multiple claim terms for the court to define under Markman procedures. The court construed the terms by reference to the patent specification, claims, and related intrinsic evidence, including defining "telecommunications" as the electronic transmission of information of any type while declining to limit it to telephony. It directed the parties to address the remaining term "usage" in later dispositive motions or motions in limine.

business & regulatory

In Hansen v. Board of Trustees for Hamilton Southeastern School Corp., parents sued a former assistant band director and the school district after learning that the director had engaged in sexual encounters with their minor daughter, a student, asserting claims under Title IX and state tort law. The court granted the director's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the parents' individual claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by the daughter's minority because Indiana law does not extend the disability statute to parents' derivative claims. The court also dismissed a negligent supervision claim against the director as having no basis.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves disputes among parties connected to the formation and operation of corporations PhoneBILLit, Inc. and Mirror Media Co., with claims by Steven V. Sann against Cindy Landeen and Neil Lucas including legal malpractice, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with business relationships. The court addressed multiple motions, granting summary judgment to Landeen on most counts (XI through XVII) but denying it on Count X, and granting summary judgment to Lucas on most counts (II through IX, XI-XII, XV-XVII) but denying it on Count I. It also granted motions to preclude expert testimony from both sides due to untimely disclosures, lack of qualification under evidence rules, and failure to meet requirements for assisting the trier of fact, while partially granting a motion to strike portions of an affidavit for hearsay, speculation, and lack of personal knowledge. The core reasoning centered on procedural compliance with case management deadlines and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 705, as well as insufficient factual support for the substantive claims under Indiana law on tortious interference and related torts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved environmental groups and individuals challenging the U.S. Army's plan to ship hydrolysate from neutralized VX chemical warfare agent from a depot in Indiana to an incineration facility in Texas, claiming violations of NEPA, RCRA, the Defense Authorization Act, and related state laws. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the shipments and incineration pending full compliance with environmental review requirements. After briefing and a hearing, the court denied the motion. The decision rested on the conclusion that plaintiffs had not met the standards for preliminary injunctive relief based on the administrative record and evidence presented regarding the Army's environmental assessments and permits.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiff James Foxworthy sued Karl Buetow and the West Central Conservancy District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his free speech rights by publishing a newspaper advertisement responding to complaints about misleading statements in his petition drive against the district's sewer rates; he also brought a state-law defamation claim. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court granted summary judgment on the defamation claim because Foxworthy failed to allege or provide evidence of special damages as required under Indiana law. The court denied summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Buetow acted with callous indifference to Foxworthy's federally protected rights, and likewise denied summary judgment on the related punitive damages claim.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved motions for partial summary judgment in a Clean Air Act enforcement action brought by the United States and several states against Cinergy Corp. and its subsidiaries. The plaintiffs argued that major construction projects at five of Cinergy's coal-fired power plants (Beckjord, Cayuga, Gallagher, Gibson, and Miami Fort) did not qualify for the routine maintenance, repair, or replacement (RMRR) exclusion and therefore triggered New Source Review permitting requirements. Cinergy countered that genuine factual disputes existed over whether the projects were routine, precluding summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions after reviewing the projects under the relevant factors—frequency, nature and extent, purpose, and cost—finding that each project involved infrequent, large-scale component replacements that extended plant life or capacity rather than constituting ordinary upkeep at the specific units. The court concluded that no material facts were disputed and that the projects fell outside the narrow RMRR exclusion as a matter of law.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved the United States suing Cinergy Corp. and related utilities for allegedly violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions by making physical changes to power plant units without obtaining required permits for pollution controls. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on Cinergy's affirmative defense that it lacked fair notice of the applicable legal standards for the routine maintenance, repair, or replacement exclusion and for determining significant emissions increases. The court granted the government's motion and denied Cinergy's, finding that EPA guidance documents, including the 1988 Clay Memo, historical regulatory interpretations from the 1970s onward, and prior court decisions had provided sufficient notice of the case-by-case, multi-factor approach to these standards. Cinergy's arguments regarding agency confusion or inconsistent statements were rejected as unsupported or irrelevant to the timing of its projects.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee for Legacy Healthcare, Inc., a nursing home operator, suing multiple Indiana state officials from agencies like the Family and Social Services Administration and the State Department of Health. The remaining claims alleged that the defendants retaliated against Legacy for litigating against the state, conspired in that retaliation, and denied the company equal protection under Medicaid and Medicare regulations, in violation of the First Amendment and equal protection principles. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after reviewing evidentiary objections, the Medicaid regulatory framework, and the plaintiff's supporting materials. It found no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claims, with some allegations also limited by statutes of limitations, collateral estoppel, or immunity doctrines.

civil rightsfree speechhealthcareprocedure