ILNews

Opinions April 12, 2011

April 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cassandra Johnson and Jarrett Buse v. Anya E. Wait, et al.
82A01-0910-CV-498
Civil. Affirms the jury instruction on contributory negligence, finding sufficient evidence to support giving it. The trial court didn’t err by refusing to give the tendered instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur offered by Johnson and Buse because there is a dearth of evidence as to exactly how and when Johnson’s shoulder injuries occurred. Affirms trial court allowance of a defense orthopedic expert witness to testify as to his opinions on causation.

Phyllis and Michael Klosinski v. Cordry Sweetwater Conservancy District
07A01-1008-PL-429
Civil plenary. Reverses finding that the Klosinskis were entitled to bring the action for an injunction against the conservancy district for anything other than the septic inspection program. The district concedes that the couple has an actual or active controversy with the district regarding participation in the septic inspection program. Reverses finding that the couple was adversely affected regarding the septic inspection program. The district wasn’t acting outside of its statutory authority when it implemented the septic inspection program. Affirms denial of the Klosinskis’ request for an injunction regarding the septic inspection program. Judge Baker concurs in part and dissents in part.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49A05-1006-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it quashed part of Crawford’s request for production of documents to a nonparty television production company, and the state produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crawford committed murder.

Jessica Borjas v. State of Indiana
49A02-1009-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class C felony forgery, stating that even though no paper record existed of Jessica Borjas forging Arie Hornbeak’s signature for two purchases, the digital signatures were sufficient evidence to convict.

John Grimes v. Tamara Grimes (NFP)
48A02-1007-DR-825
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny John Grimes’ motion to correct error in a post-dissolution proceeding.

Sherrill Essett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-481
Criminal. Reverses jury trial’s conviction of Sherrill Essett for Class D felony theft, stating evidence was not sufficient to support conviction.

Charlotte A. Hunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1010-CR-628
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

John Mark Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A04-1006-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony receiving stolen property and Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary. Affirms court’s determination that John Mark Harris is a habitual offender and affirms sentences.

Adoption of J.H.; I.H. v. J.R. & W.R. (NFP)
29A02-1009-AD-1091
Adoption. Affirms trial court’s ruling that father’s consent to adoption was not required.

Bryant Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-962
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Martha J. Tichenor v. Daniel Dodson (NFP)
07A01-1006-PO-285
Order of protection. Reverses protection order in favor of Daniel Dodson, et al., stating that repeated e-mails do not fall under protection statute.

Brice Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1007-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Sieb Corp., Inc., Kurt Siebert, et al. v. Laidig Systems, Inc., Mishawaka Leasing Corp., et al. (NFP)
71A03-1010-CT-531
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of DJ Construction, Progressive, and Clarkco. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Laidig Systems, Wyn, and Mishawaka Leasing Corp., and remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.C. & J.V.; J.V. v. IDCS (NFP)
71A04-1010-JT-630
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.G., J.S., & K.S.; G.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1009-JT-489
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT