ILNews

Opinions Dec. 18, 2013

December 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ralph Stockton v. Falls Auctioneers and Realtors and Peggy Buck as Trustee of the Peggy Buck Trust
18A05-1304-CT-160
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Peggy Buck as trustee of the Peggy Buck Trust on Stockon’s negligence suit. There are questions of fact regarding whether Stockton’s fall was caused in part by the length of the grass and whether Buck controlled the length of the grass. It cannot be said as a matter of law that Buck owed no duty to Stockton and Buck was not entitled to summary judgment on this basis. Remands for further proceedings.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D. v. Estate of Phyllis R. Barnes, Deceased, By Peggy Hood as Personal Representative, Joe Clinkenbeard, P.A., et al.
45A04-1107-CT-369
Civil tort. Dismisses appeal, finding I.C. 34-51-3-6 does not allow the state to intervene in otherwise private litigation, ostensibly to protect its interest in a punitive damage award.

Local 1963 of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Madison County, Indiana, Madison County Assessor, and Madison County Recorder
27A05-1301-CC-40
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Madison County defendants because as a matter of law, the county commissioners and county council had no authority to execute a collective bargaining agreement with UAW interfering with the independence of the assessor and recorder in appointing and discharging their deputies and employees.

George A. Nunley v. State of Indiana
10A04-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects. Judge Riley would deny the petition for rehearing. Dismisses state’s argument that the proper remedy for a late-filed amendment would have been for the court to remand for proceedings on an habitual offender sentence enhancement rather than the reversal that the COA ordered.

Paul J. Coy v. State of Indiana
48A02-1301-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony reckless homicide and two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness. Finds that the trial court properly declined to give a lesser-included instruction, there was not a fatal variation in the charging information, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering aggravators and failing to consider or give proper weight to mitigators, and Coy’s sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

In Re the Matter of the Paternity of T.L.T.: State of Indiana, as Child's Next Friend ex rel. (NFP)
71A04-1305-JP-214
Juvenile. Reverses grant of father’s motion to set aside the default judgment of paternity entered against him.

Willie Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony attempted obstruction of justice.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.B., K.B., T.B., and M.J., (Minor Children) and J.W., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
10A05-1303-JT-108
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Masoud Azimi on behalf of Amir Mansour Azimi, Deceased v. Clarian Health Partners d/b/a Methodist Hospital, Kyle Yancey, M.D., Steve S. Shin, M.D., David M. Kaehr, M.D., et al (NFP)
49A04-1304-CT-179
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the health care providers on Azimi’s medical malpractice complaint.

Timothy J. Fugate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1306-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and orders Fugate serve five years of the originally imposed eight-year suspended sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of : B.M.B. and B.A.B., Minor Children, R.B., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
21A01-1304-JT-188
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Frederick M. Dial v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1301-CR-15
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Thomas Dillman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1303-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for Class C felony failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death. Reverses order that court costs and a public-defender fee be paid from Dillman’s cash bond.

Lynda Rollins v. Graycor Construction Company, Inc., Graycor Industrial Constructors, Inc., Graycor Industrial Constructors, LLC, Graycor Construction Company, LLC, and Graycor, Inc. (NFP)
64A03-1307-CT-273
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Graycor Construction Co. Inc. in a personal injury negligence action brought by Rollins.

Guy Ivester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1209-PC-491
Post conviction. Grants petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects, which held Ivester was not denied the effective assistance of his trial counsel, that he entered his guilty plea voluntarily, that his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court abuse of discretion are unavailable, and that there was no abuse by the post-conviction court.

Andre Moton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1305-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony robbery and Class B felony attempted carjacking.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.N.C. and L.G.C.; J.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1305-JT-415
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: P.K. (Minor Child) and D.K. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
28A01-1306-JT-260
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christopher L. Aders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A05-1305-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for dismissal under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C).

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT