Opinions May 22, 2014

May 22, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Yellowbook Inc. f/k/a Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc. v. Central Indiana Cooling and Heating, Inc. and Lawrence E. Stone a/k/a Larry Stone
Civil collection. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. The trial court erred when it concluded that Yellow Book failed to credit certain Central Indiana Cooling and Heating payments under Contracts 1 and 2; Contract 3 was induced by fraud and is rescinded; and Yellow Book is entitled to pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for amounts owed under Contracts 1 and 2.

Maddox T. Macy v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Macy’s acts of opening the officer’s police car door and refusing to place her feet inside the car were not acts constituting forcible resistance.  

Julian Tuggle v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Tuggle’s Fourth Amendment rights and Article I, Section 11 rights were not violated. The evidence demonstrated that the detective acted lawfully and reasonably in seizing the bag of Tuggle’s clothing without a warrant.

Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery. Although the state committed prosecutorial misconduct in its first statement, that error was harmless. There was no misconduct related to the prosecutor’s second statement.

Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of River City Bank granting it the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ real estate. The principles of full faith and credit required the trial court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court res judicata to the instant cause.

In the Matter of the Paternity of B.C., M.B. and N.S. v. J.C.
Juvenile. Reverses denial of guardians’ motion to correct error following an order on custody and parenting time in a paternity action filed by J.C. in Montgomery County, and denial of their motions in Marion County to correct error following the dismissal of their guardianship and adoption action. Because the petition for adoption and the paternity action were pending at the same time, the court in which the petition for adoption had been filed had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C. Accordingly, the Montgomery Circuit Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction to enter its July 5, 2013, order as the Marion Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C., and the Marion Superior Court erred when it dismissed the guardianship and adoption proceedings.

Darren L. Sivley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Jeremy Riffert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 800-day sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

William A. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Sylvester Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.S. (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.M.D., E.D., and S.D., (Minor Children), and S.D., (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and four counts of Class A misdemeanor tattooing a minor.

Larry Powell v. Vanessa Powell (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms division of assets in the dissolution of the Powells’ marriage.

David W. Reed v. Jennifer Reed (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms award of primary physical custody of the two minor sons to mother.

Thomas H. Fuller, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order Fuller serve his entire previously suspended sentence following a violation of terms of work release.

Megan M. Hatzell v. Tyler A. Hatzell (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms custody modification order granting temporary custody of three minor daughters to their father.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?