ILNews

Opinions Dec. 14, 2012

December 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Brenda Alexander v. Donald Alexander
32A05-1108-DR-417
Domestic relations. Affirms in a divided opinion the trial court denial of a motion to correct error of the court’s omission of an award for incapacity maintenance for Brenda Alexander. She claimed that testimony of her disabilities and court findings supported an award, but the majority held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on ruling that such an award was not warranted.

A Plus Home Health Care Incorporated v. Kathleen Miecznikowski
93A02-1207-EX-558
Civil. Affirms Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s decision in favor of Miecznikowski on her claim for workers’ compensation. Agrees with the board’s conclusion that her fall was a neutral risk and therefore compensable.

Christine Banks v. Timothy R. Banks
45A03-1203-DR-96
Domestic Relation. Affirms trial court’s reduction in the amount of spousal maintenance Christine Banks receives from her ex-husband Timothy Banks. The COA rejected Christine Banks’ argument that Indiana law does not permit incapacity spousal maintenance to be modified, noting it was incorrect. The court stated when an obligor spouse suffers a deterioration in financial condition that is the result of factors beyond his or her control, he or she should not be forced to continuing paying maintenance based on a better financial condition.  

Melissa Patterson v. State of Indiana
34A02-1203-CR-235
Criminal. Reversed and remanded a trial court’s denial of Patterson’s motion to the charges of aiding, inducing or causing invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor. Patterson was charged because she twice visited her fiancé after she had obtained a no-contact order against him. The COA held the Indiana General Assembly did not criminalize the actions of a protected person to invite the subject of a protective order to violate the terms of the order.

Granite State Insurance Company v. Robert Lodholtz and Pulliam Enterprises, Inc.
71A04-1111-CT-635
Civil Tort. Affirms in a 2-1 opinion the trial court denial of Granite State to intervene in a suit in which its claims administrator failed to respond to Lodholtz’s claim in a workplace injury suit, resulting in a default judgment and subsequent $3.9 million damages award. The majority held that because Granite State reserved a right to deny coverage in its offer to represent Pulliam in an effort to vacate the judgment, it had an interest that was at best contingent and insufficient to support intervention. Judge John Baker dissented, holding that Granite State’s interest is not being protected.

Bert S. Watkins, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1203-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for obstruction of justice, a Class D felony, with habitual offender enhancement.

Nicholas Corbin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1202-CR-161
Criminal. Affirms convictions of burglary as a Class B felony, burglary as a Class C felony, attempted burglary as a Class C felony, theft as a Class D felony, auto theft as a Class D felony, resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor, three counts of receiving stolen property as a Class D felony, and criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor.

Brian Taskey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A04-1204-CR-189
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. COA found the state presented sufficient evidence to prove Taskey committed the charged offenses.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: MS. and M.T.; and A.H. and T.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
07A04-1204-JT-217
Juvenile Termination of Parental Rights. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights of A.H. (mother) and T.S. (father) to their respective children.

William C. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1206-PC-307
Post Conviction Relief Petition. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief. After the post-conviction court denied Davis’ petition the first time, the COA affirmed much of the decision but remanded for further proceedings related to several of Davis’ claims. The post-conviction court again denied Davis relief and the COA affirmed.

Henry Coyne Woodward v. Kimberlee Ann Norton (NFP)
71A03-1207-DR-311
Domestic Relation. Affirms money judgment in favor of Norton for Woodward’s failure to transfer funds from a retirement account to her. Reverses and remands for proceedings the order finding Woodward in contempt because the judgment that Woodward pay Norton a fixed amount is not enforceable by contempt.

Benito D. Lesiak v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1204-CR-183
Criminal. Affirms conviction of reckless homicide, a Class C felony.

Dewayne Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, finding trial court did properly deny Walker's request to instruct the jury on the less-included offense of residential entry.

Kenneth Meer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1204-CR-193
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape, as a Class A felony, and criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony.

Miles A. Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1204-CR-151
Criminal. Affirms 20-year aggregate sentence for convictions of three counts of burglary, each as a Class B felony, two counts of attempted burglary, each as a Class B felony, and one count of burglary as a Class C felony.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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