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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT