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

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