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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT