ILNews

Opinions April 25, 2011

April 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Marcus Curlin
10-3033
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s decision to deny motion to suppress, without an evidentiary hearing, stating Marcus Curlin failed to identify any disputed issues of fact that affect the outcome of the motion.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Melissa Kay Sneed v. State of Indiana
16A01-1010-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to reduce bail. Affirms amount of bail, but reverses court’s decision to require cash-only payment of bail, ruling court abused its discretion. Remands for further proceedings.

BP Products North America, et al. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, et al.
93A02-0905-EX-490
Civil. Affirms Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s order, as it pertains to the contract with the City of Whiting. Reverses commission’s order as it applies to contracts with U.S. Steel, Ineos, Praxair, and Marsulex, stating the commission erred in its interpretation of the controlling statutes and case law. Remands with instructions that the commission vacate this portion of the order.

Richard Sigo, Jr. v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co.
25A03-1008-PL-406
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s finding that the probative value of Richard Sigo’s criminal trial for arson and acquittal was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to insurer.

Anthony Price, Jr. v. State of Indiana
79A05-1007-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, and Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine. States that the 40-year sentence is appropriate, given Price’s past felony record.

Sharon S. York, et al. v. Donald Fredrick, et al.
42A01-1008-PL-420
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of the Yorks’ claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress and grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants as to the Yorks’ claims of breach of fiduciary relationship, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny the Yorks’ motion to strike the supplement to fact and reply brief filed by Robert Evans and Sexton Wilbert and the Yorks’ motion to reconsider granting leave to the defendants to file supplement to facts and reply brief.

Barry T. Owens v. State of Indiana
12A04-1008-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and one count of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, stating trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing to determine ability to reimburse the Public Defender Fund at the time of initial sentencing.

Allan B. Zukerman, et al. v. Robert L. Montgomery, et al.
49A02-1006-CC-803
Civil collection. Reverses trial court’s order granting motions to enforce a mediated settlement agreement on the basis that the settlement agreement is not sufficiently definite and certain so that the intention of the parties may be ascertained. Remands for further proceedings.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Gloria D. Tussey (NFP)
45A03-1005-CT-234
Civil tort. Affirms award of $100,000 in damages for underinsured motorist benefits claim.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-916
Criminal. Vacates order of restitution and remands for determination of appropriate restitution amount.

Dametrick M. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1008-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Eric Nevels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1006-CR-961
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Kurtis Shorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor operating while license is suspended, and Class B misdemeanor of failure to stop after property damage accident.

Malcolm Armour v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-879
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s denial of demand for trial setting and motion to transport defendant to Marion County Jail for purpose of trial preparation and competency evaluation. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.V.; P.V. v. IDCS (NFP)
64A04-1004-JT-236
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s determination that the mother freely and voluntarily relinquished her parental rights.

Calvert Byrd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1009-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime.

Zuryzaday J. Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-485
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and Class B felony burglary.

Margaret Roupp, et al. v. Robert Roupp (NFP)
41A01-1007-MI-335
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s denial of Family and Social Services Administration’s motion to correct error, and remands with instructions to vacate spousal support order.

Renee Wilson v. Indiana Horse Racing Commission (NFP)
49A02-1011-MI-1303
Miscellaneous. Affirms order dismissing with prejudice the petition for judicial review of a decision of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission granting Wilson only a conditional horse racing trainer’s license containing the restriction that the horses she trained be stabled in Indiana.

Marlonda Tigner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-906
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as an habitual offender.

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT