ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2012

November 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana
46A05-1202-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s judgment in denying motion to dismiss charges of failure to report child abuse or neglect. Lebo argued the charges were not permissible because they came after the statute of limitations had passed but the COA disagreed, finding the Legislature’s intent was to make the failure to report a continuing offense. Otherwise, the court stated, the duty to report would be limited to the day on which the individual comes to believe abuse is taking place.

The Marling Family Trust v. Allstate Ins. Company
49A02-1203-CT-186
Civil tort/trust. Reverses the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate and remands to determine whether the loss is covered under an insurance policy. The trust purchased a house at sheriff’s sale after a foreclosure but had established an equitable lien in policy proceeds under an existing homeowner’s policy and therefore was entitled to receive funds from the policy in the event of an insured loss, the appellate court held.

Kohl's Indiana, L.P. and Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc. v. Dennis Owens, et al.
82A05-1203-PL-103
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Area Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, holding that neither body accepted a common obligation to complete the project to build a Kohl’s department store on the west side of Evansville, and that Kohl’s cannot recover on a theory implied in law because a contract with the Board of Commissioners required Kohl’s to complete public infrastructure improvements at its expense.

Sharmain J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction of illegal possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Roosevelt D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1205-PC-375
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Mattie A. Tedrow and Mary L. Pierson v. Coyeville Belcher as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Everett D. Belcher, Jr.; and Lynn R. Belcher (NFP)
59A01-1204-EU-196
Estate/unsupervised. Affirms trial court decision to uphold the will of Tedrow and Belcher’s father.

William Emry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A03-1204-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

BCC Products, Inc. and Roger Brunette, Jr. v. Roger Brunette, Sr., and Pauline Brunette (NFP)
41A01-1201-CC-28
Collections. Affirms trial court decision in favor of defendants.

Albert Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction and enhancement of a count of trespassing from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony.

Bernard Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1203-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement.

Jerry Kaiser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1203-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ramos v. Robertson's Apartments (NFP)
71A03-1203-SC-107
Small claims. Affirms trial court denial of request for appointment of guardian ad litem and request for damages in excess of the small claims jurisdictional maximum.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT