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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT