ILNews

Opinions Jan. 21, 2014

January 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lovoyne Drain
12-3684
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms above-guidelines sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. Section 4A1.3(a)(3), like every provision of the sentencing guidelines, is advisory. And the judge did not violate Drain’s right to due process by taking into account his arrest history as part of her evaluation of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a).

Indiana Supreme Court
American Cold Storage, et al. v. The City of Boonville
87S01-1303-PL-157
Civil plenary. Reverses the decision of the trial court and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Holds that the land in this case, which comprises the portion of State Road 62 included in the annexed territory, should be considered and counted as a single parcel in determining whether the remonstrating Landowners comprise 65 percent of the owners of the annexed territory.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Weist v. Kristen Dawn and State Farm Insurance Companies
49A02-1306-PL-541
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm on Weist’s complaint for monetary damages based on the direct action rule. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Dawn and remands for a trier of fact to resolve whether she is equitably estopped from asserting the defense that the statute of limitations bars Weist’s claim.

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
49A04-1212-PO-649
Protective order. Affirms order of contempt in favor of K.G. The trial court did not improperly act as an advocate and therefore did not deny A.N. her due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion.

Terry Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Christopher Jethroe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-155
Criminal. Remands with instructions to the trial court to revise the sentence on the Class C felony dealing in marijuana conviction downward to a term of imprisonment within the range authorized by the Class C felony sentencing statute. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school property.

Tievon N. Nichols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 50-year executed sentence following guilty plea to one count of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Brandon M. Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-372
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.I., the minor child, and K.I., the mother, K.I. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
91A04-1305-JT-244
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Smita Radhakrishnan v. Access Therapies, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1303-PL-202
Civil plenary. Reverses award of $32,237.60 in damages plus costs for a breach of contract and remands for further proceedings. Affirms dismissal of Radhakrishnan’s counterclaim requesting attorney fees and costs.

Charles E. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1304-CR-164
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of denial of motion to correct error following denial of motion for jail time credit.

Edward Zaragoza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-744
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit burglary, attempted robbery and burglary; Class D felonies conspiracy to commit theft and theft; and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as well as determination Zaragoza is a habitual offender.

Darrell Kirkwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1305-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of previously suspended sentence.

VPR Properties, LLC and Purna Veer and Radhika Veer v. Affiliated Foot Care Clinic, PC (NFP)
10A04-1304-PL-177
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Affiliated Foot Care Clinic after it filed a breach of contract action against VPR properties.

Timothy J. Padgett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1305-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Donald Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-PC-370
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT