ILNews

Opinions April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012
Keywords
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.
55A01-1110-CT-442
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
49A02-1107-PL-685
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
07A01-1106-PL-313
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
49A02-1107-CR-594
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
32A01-1108-CR-393
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)
79A04-1108-JT-483
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)
49A02-1109-CR-848
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)
32A04-1111-DR-582
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)
03A04-1109-CR-485
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)
49A02-1102-PL-152
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)
45A03-1110-JT-453
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)
92A04-1108-CR-405
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)
57A03-1111-CR-498
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)
52A02-1110-CR-984
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s revocation of probation on grounds that evidence is insufficient to support findings that defendant violated his probation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT