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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT