Opinions April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Melanie Webster v. Walgreen Co.
Civil. Affirms judgment of trial court denying motion to amend the filing date of a complaint against Walgreen in order to comply with the statute of limitations. The appellate court held that “mailing” for purposes of the Indiana Trial Rules requires the sender to affix sufficient postage, and since that didn’t happen here the original complaint was untimely.

Calvin Hair v. Mike Schellenberger and Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Felix Adejare, and Sharon Adejare
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in a property title dispute in which the court denied Calvin Hair’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the appellees' motions for summary judgment. Appellate panel found that Hair’s judgment was outside the chain of title and that the person who purchased the Talbott Street property in Indianapolis was a bona fide purchaser as a matter of law.

Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Estate of Thomas Lynn Morris, by and through his personal representative, Tommy Lynn Morris, Daemen Sampson, and Dora Robinson
Civil. Affirms trial court judgment granting an estate’s motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment filed by a California-based insurance exchange operation. Holds the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss.

Ronald Rexroat v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of child molesting and finds that they do no violate double jeopardy principles simply because the pair of charges are worded identically. Appellate court also found that a condition of probation requiring defendant to have no contact with any person 18 or younger unless first approved is not overbroad and a violation of First Amendment rights.

Mark Todisco v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of a motion to discharge, finding against defendant who was found guilty by a jury of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct and alleged the state failed to bring him to trial within one year according to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.T. and J.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of a mother’s parental rights as to her minor child, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the findings that the conditions that led to the child’s removal will not be remedied and termination is in the child’s best interest.

Gregory Hayes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s order revoking probation, finding evidence insufficient to support the determination that defendant violated his probation terms.

In re the Marriage of: Richard A. Medcalf v. Sheri L. Medcalf (NFP)
Divorce. Reverses trial court’s decision to award attorney fees in a protracted divorce case involving a new parenting time agreement. Remands for court to hold further proceedings on the fees.

Rex A. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence of man convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class D felony receiving stolen auto parts, finding trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in issuing a sentence of nearly 3.5 years and the penalty is not inappropriate.

Lorraine Tietjen v. PEP Educational Support, Inc., Turner Marketing, Inc., and Richard P. Turner (NFP)
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of an educational support service and marketing company following a bench trial involving fraud and breach of contract. Appellate panel finds trial court did not err in its judgment.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ja.B., J.B., J.P., A.P. & C.P.; and R.P. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake Co. CASA (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating mother’s parental rights to three children, finding the state DCS provided sufficient evidence to support the termination.

Ryan S. Shearer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for a man convicted of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, where the trial court sentenced him to an advisory 10 years with two years suspended to probation.

Rachel Ann Ruch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed for Class B felony conviction of dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor conviction of possession of paraphernalia, finding trial court did not err in imposing aggregate 15-year sentence with five years suspended to probation.

James Alvarado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s revocation of probation on grounds that evidence is insufficient to support findings that defendant violated his probation.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?