ILNews

Opinions April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas M. Grimes v. Victoria Crockrom, et al.
45A03-1008-CT-491
Civil tort. Affirms order that Grimes, Crockrom’s former attorney, produce Crockrom’s medical records he obtained while he was representing her. The trial court erred when it did so without first providing for the security of the attorney fees owed. Grimes has a valid retaining lien over Crockrom’s medical records. Remands with instructions that the court determine how much in attorney fees Grimes is owed and then order Crockrom to provide security for the payment of those fees.

D.G. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1006-JV-416
Juvenile. Reverses true finding that D.G. committed what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The failure to assess victim A.S.’s competency before testifying was an error and requires reversing the true finding. There is sufficient evidence to permit another hearing on the allegations. Remands for further proceedings.

Brett Boston v. State of Indiana
32A01-1008-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of Boston’s motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in retroactively applying the 2010 amendments to I.C. Section 9-30-6-6 and reliance, thereon, in denying Boston’s motion to suppress. The amendments were remedial in nature, motivated by strong and compelling reasons aimed at public safety and welfare, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto criminal sanctions.

Michael J. Cable v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony intimidation and one count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

State of Indiana v. Mary McNeal (NFP)
84A05-1008-CR-485
Criminal. Affirms grant of McNeal’s motion to suppress.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.H.; R.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
79A02-1009-JT-1166
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lisa and Nicole Tanasijevic v. Alicia Bookwood (NFP)
45A03-1007-CT-364
Civil tort. Affirms verdict in favor of Bookwood on the Tanasijevics’ complaint following an auto accident.

Claudette Mee, et al. v. George Albers, M.D., et al. (NFP)
03A01-1007-CT-339
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Dr. Albers and Southern Indiana OB/GYN on the Mees’ complaint for damages arising from alleged medical malpractice.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT