Opinions July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati Life Insurance Company v. Marjorie Beyrer
Civil plenary. Affirms District Court rulings against Marjorie Beyrer, widow of Kevin Beyrer, in a life insurance dispute. The court found no merit on the issues she appealed after she failed to be awarded proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy that was assigned to a third party. Dismissal of some claims for failing to comply with federal pleading standards and summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Life on other claims was not an abuse of discretion, the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason J. Klinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of three years for Class D felony escape.

In Re: Paternity of B.B.; M.B. v. Y.M.M. (NFP)
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that M.B., the father, was in contempt for failing to pay certain childcare expenses and that, Y.M.M., the mother, was not in contempt of any court order regarding visitation.

Tharl Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Pinkston’s probation.

Jeffrey Bowles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Bowles’ conviction for Class D felony domestic battery.

Edwin Valladares v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Valladares’ convictions following a bench trial for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class B misdemeanor voyeurism.

Daniel Paul Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Foster to an aggregated 26 years executed in the Department of Correction: 20 years for Class B felony aggravated battery, three years each for the two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a penal facility employee (to be served consecutively to each other and to the 20 year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery), and one year for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (to be served concurrently to the other sentences).

In Re The Guardianship of Carlton H. Word; Timothy W. Word and Tracy L. Wise v. Rance Buehrer, Guardian of Carlton H. Word (NFP)
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s judgment that under the terms of the June 4, 1998, second amendment to Carlton’s trust, the Zimmerman Farm must be distributed as part of the trust residuary, rather than as a specific bequest under the trust or pursuant to an undelivered, unrecorded deed.

Christopher Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Long’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Terrence Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Boyd’s conviction, after a bench trial, for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Benjamen’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.