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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT