ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2012

November 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Michael Kucholick v. State of Indiana
12S02-1211-CR-630
Criminal. Justices grant transfer and order Kucholick’s sentence for Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief revised to the advisory term of four years, all executed. Summarily affirms Court of Appeals decision in all respects. Chief Justice Dickson dissents, believing the trial court’s sentence of seven years should be affirmed.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dennis Larson, Rose Real Estate, Inc., and Diversified Commercial Real Estate v. Peter N. Karagan
45A04-1112-CC-656
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Karagan on his breach of contract and conversion claims as well as the award of treble damages. There are no genuine issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Reverses denial of Karagan’s request for prejudgment interest and remands for a calculation of the amount of interest to which Karagan is entitled.

Fred C. Feitler, Mary Anna Feitler, and the Feitler Family Trust v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., J. Laurie Commercial Floors, LLC, d/b/a Jack Lauries Floor Designs, JM Woodworking Co.
17A04-1206-PL-297
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors on the question of the Feitlers’ personal responsibility, as that issue should go to trial. Agrees that neither J. Laurie Commercial Floors nor JM Woodworking can hold a mechanic’s lien against the real estate on which Fred and Mary Anna Feitler were building a home.

Cornelius Hooten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Cameron Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-PC-502
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

John Salter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1203-CR-275
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction following guilty plea.

In the Matter of C.C., (Minor Child), a Child in Need of Services; M.W., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1203-JC-127
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of 17-year-old C.C. as a child in need of services.

In the Matter of the Parent-Child Rel. of: K.E.G.-H. and D.G. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
51A01-1204-JT-174
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

LaQuinton Leonard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1203-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Cherie Solms v. Michael Solms (NFP)
27A02-1204-PO-279
Protective order. Reverses dismissal of petition for an order of protection against Michael Solms. Remands with instructions.

Brian Gale Waters v. Indiana Real Estate Commission, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1112-MI-1165
Miscellaneous. Reverses and remands with instructions to dismiss Waters’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Brandon Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, reverses public defender fee and remands for further proceedings.

Vincent O. Dates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1203-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Thomas Dudley and Barbara Dudley v. The Estate of Earl Studtmann (NFP)
46A03-1204-PL-147
Civil plenary. Reverses entry of summary judgment for the estate and remands for further proceedings.

James S. Shidler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A05-1204-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Adrian Lotaki v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1106-PC-284
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT