ILNews

Opinions May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith, Deceased v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc. and Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta, et al.
54S01-1405-CT-356
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of national fraternity Delta Tau Delta on the Smiths’ wrongful death complaint. There is no designated evidentiary material that shows that the national fraternity had a right to exercise direct day-to-day oversight and control of the behavior of the activities of the local fraternity and its members. Concludes as a matter of law that an agency relationship does not exist between the national fraternity and the local fraternity or its members.

Larry Robert David, II, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Marie David, Deceased v. William Kleckner, M.D.
49S02-1405-MI-355
Miscellaneous. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Kleckner on David’s wrongful death medical malpractice complaint. Kleckner is not entitled to summary judgment on his defense asserting the medical malpractice statute of limitations.

Indiana Tax Court
David A. McKeeman, Sr., and Karen A. McKeeman v. Steuben County Assessor
02T10-1104-TA-31
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s decision upholding the McKeemans’ 2006 real property assessment. The board did not err in rejecting their claim regarding establishment of their neighborhood, the McKeemans have not shown that the board erred in upholding the $5,900 base rate applied to their land, and they have not shown that the board erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. d/b/a Zurich Northland Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co. of America
02S03-1305-CT-332
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment order capping Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co.’s liability for uninsured motorist coverage at $75,000. Indiana law applies because the truck at issue was registered and garaged in Indiana. But issues of material fact remain regarding the applicable level of coverage. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana
79A05-1309-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement. The Tippecanoe County Community Corrections had the authority to reject Treece from his placement in community corrections for a violation he committed while in the community transition program. He committed an act of violence, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community corrections placement. Remands for clarification of sentencing order.

Guardianship of Phyllis D. Hayes, an Adult, Joann Hayes and Dianna Hale v. Kenneth J. Hayes
52A02-1308-GU-751
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Hayes’ and Hale’s motion for summary judgment and the trial court order concluding that the execution of an option contract by their mother, Phyllis Hayes, to their brother was enforceable. The trial court’s conclusion that their mother was not acting under undue influence when she executed the option contract was not clearly erroneous.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald A. Prout
49A04-1305-CR-236
Criminal. Affirms grant of Prout’s petition to expunge his arrest record. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no offense was committed and that no probable cause existed to support either the filing or the prosecution of the charges. Prout, a sheriff’s deputy, was charged with four counts of Class D felony theft for allegedly working as a security guard while being paid by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

Mauricio Reyes-Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Lance Stover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Holly and Christopher Dunn, Holly and Benjamin Rothenbush, and Tomi and Michael Meyer v. Kathryn Davis and For the Children Medical Mission Foundation, Inc. (NFP)
02A03-1307-PL-269
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment to For the Children Medical Mission Foundation on breach of contract and fraud claims.

Anthony Flores v. Blake A. Hudson (NFP)
02A03-1307-PO-279
Protective order. Affirms dismissal of petition for the protective order sought against Hudson.

Ray A. Chamorro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A05-1309-CR-445
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Danny Shane Claspell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1310-CR-880
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting but reverses sentence and remands for it to be reduced to the advisory sentence of four years.

Dejuan D. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1310-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine; reverses the sentencing order in part and remands for further proceedings.

Robert L. McFall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A05-1309-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school. Remands for further sentencing proceedings on the charge of possession of paraphernalia.

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-900
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Steven Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-750
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to issue order terminating parole.

Gabriel Senteney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-818
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Latroya Rucker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-918
Criminal. Affirms order that Rucker pay $240 in restitution to the owner of the vehicle whose windshield she smashed.

Betty Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-805
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct but reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1401-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

R.C. v. J.Q. (NFP)
49A04-1308-DR-425
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s denial of father’s motion to continue the final hearing and concludes that father waived his claim of error under Evidence Rule 612. The trial court’s child support order is supported by the evidence. Remands with instructions to issue an order containing findings sufficient to support its decision to restrict father’s parenting time or enter a new order without the restriction.

In re the Paternity of T.T.: D.T. v. S.B. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms denial of petition to modify court-ordered child support for T.T.
85A02-1311-JP-1006

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony burglary, Class B felony attempted arson, Class D felony criminal mischief and Class D felony intimidation.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT