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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT