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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT