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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT