Opinions April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Richard Leggs v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Reverses one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, due to the continuing crime doctrine and remands for resentencing.

Nathan Abernathy v. Larry Bertram and Keith Broyles
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s decision to omit the value of Abernathy’s crop insurance policy in the amount of damages it ordered Broyles to pay. Holds the trial court did not err when it denied Abernathy’s conversion claim because he did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Broyles and Bertram intended to exercise unauthorized control over Abernathy’s property.

Omni Insurance Group v. Lake Poage, Tonya Poage, Cody Bauer, Jill Bauer, Gary Bauer, and Allstate Insurance Company
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the appellees, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a teen was a resident of his mother’s household at the time of a crash and insured under her auto policy. Remands for trial.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.L.; P.L. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Michael Rimschneider v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea.

Rodney D. Bledsoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Class C infraction driving left of center, Class D felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

John A. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of Brenda S. Sanders and Paul R. Sanders, Paul R. Sanders v. Brenda S. Sanders (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property and denies Brenda Sanders’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Jamal Rasheed Southern v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for credit time.

In Re: The Marriage of Noelle Christine Green and Prentiss Lamont Green; Noelle Christine Green v. Prentiss Lamont Green (NFP)
Domestic relation. Dismisses appeal of magistrate’s entry regarding child support modification.

LBJA Investments, LLC v. Brian Kamuf and William K. Saalwaechter (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms court’s striking of portions of LBJA Investments’ motion for summary judgment, denial of its motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of Saalwaechter.

Alan Dwayne Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies criminal recklessness and intimidation.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.K., F.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?