ILNews

Opinions April 29, 2011

April 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven A. Coppolillo v. Anthony Cort
45A05-1007-PL-433
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Cort on Coppolillo’s suit for unjust enrichment.  The parties’ contract does not preclude Coppolillo’s claim in equity against Cort. There is a material dispute of fact as to whether Cort was unjustly enriched. Remands for further proceedings.

Kevin A. Griffin and Maureen O. Griffin, et al. v. George E. Simpson, Team Indiana Volleyball, Inc., et al.
18A02-1009-CT-1064
Civil tort. Affirms grant of coach Becky Murray and Team Indiana Volleyball’s motion for summary judgment that as a matter of law they owed no duty to a minor player when she was injured on private property during the time that the team was on break between tournament sessions.

Joni Gabriel, personal representative of the estate of Eugene A. Gabriel Jr. v. Loretta Gabriel, personal representative of the estate of Eugene A. Gabriel Sr.
34A04-1007-ES-438
Estate, supervised. Affirms trial court properly determined that Loretta’s action was not barred and the evidence supported the findings that Eugene Sr. had not transferred stock to Eugene Jr. Reverses determination regarding the ownership of the stock and the percentage of the estate that is to be distributed to Loretta and the remaining heirs. Remands with instructions to hear further evidence if necessary and to make additional findings as to the distribution of the estate.

Edwin Blinn, Jr. v. The Law Firm of Johnson, Beaman, Bratch, Beal and White, LLP
27A05-1011-CT-721
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Blinn’s complaint against the law firm, alleging the firm was vicariously liable for Beal’s malpractice.  The trial court properly dismissed Blinn’s complaint because it was time-barred and was not saved by the Journey’s Account Statute.

Thomas J. Tarrance v. State of Indiana
60A01-1010-CR-570
Criminal. Dismisses Tarrance’s appeal of his sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. Tarrance didn’t timely file his notice of appeal, so it’s dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Aaron R. Nichols v. State of Indiana
29A04-1008-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct error challenging the denial of Nichols’ motion to order the Indiana Department of Correction to amend the Sex Offender Registry to reflect that he was required to register as a sex offender for a 10-year period instead of for life. Rejects Nichols’ interpretation of “unrelated” to require a “conviction-and-re-offense” sequence. The reporting period is determined by law, not by the trial court or the DOC.

Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana
55A01-1005-CR-251
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony stalking. The evidence is insufficient to support the stalking conviction. Judge Bradford dissents.

City of Mitchell, Indiana, et al. v. Steven Blair (NFP)
47A04-1011-PL-754
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order reversing the Indiana Board of Works and Public Safety’s decision to terminate Blair’s employment with the Mitchell Police Department, and reinstating him with back pay.

John Pagorek v. Adrienne Garippo and Jimmy Warren (NFP)
45A03-1005-SC-243
Small claim. Affirms denial of Pagorek’s motion to correct error.

Brent Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1007-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Timothy Rene Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1009-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to theft.

Construction Labor Contractors, Inc. v. Masiongale Electrical-Mechanical, Inc. (NFP)
18A02-1008-CC-881
Civil collections. Reverses denial of Construction Labor Contractors Inc.’s denial of its motion to correct error seeking additur following a judgment in its favor against Masiongale Electrical-Mechanical. Remands with instructions.

Amy Whitaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-PC-698
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paternity of E.W.; L.W. v. C.M. (NFP)
65A01-1010-JP-588
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father’s petition to modify the physical custody of his daughter and the issuance of a modified parenting-time order.

R.W. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1007-EX-802
Civil. Affirms finding that R.W. was discharged by his employer for just cause.

Simon Shulkin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1012-CR-607
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class C misdemeanor failure to stop after damage to a vehicle. Remands for a new trial.

Robert Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Timothy A. Strait v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1009-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony child molesting, Class D felony domestic battery, and Class D felony criminal confinement, which was entered as a Class A misdemeanor.

Avonte Yarbrough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1088
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony battery.

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT