ILNews

Opinions April 5, 2012

April 5, 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

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ronald Glenn Dyer
28A04-1107-MF-404
Mortgage Foreclosure. Reverses trial court’s order that GMAC Mortgage rewrite an agreement about an FHA-insured loan that Ronald Dyer defaulted on. Appellate court held that under federal law and HUD regulations, deeds in lieu of foreclosure release the borrower from any mortgage obligation and in this case the standard language GMAC used was sufficient.

Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M. and Achilles Podiatry Group

54A01-1107-CT-302
Civil tort. Reverses medical malpractice ruling by trial court in striking expert witness testimony and dismissing a woman’s claim. Appellate court remands, finding that the trial court abused its discretion because the woman’s failure to comply with discovery orders and Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) did not rise to a sufficient level to deny her the chance to have her day in court.

Douglas W. Fancil v. State of Indiana
20A01-1107-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms and reverses in part, finding insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Douglas Fancil manufactured three or more grams of meth. Affirms on other issues and remands with instructions to enter a conviction for a Class B felony dealing in meth and to issue a sentence accordingly.

William J. Harness and Bridget V. Harness v. Tabassum Parkar, Arshad Husain, John Mattingly Homes, Inc., and Lakeridge Crossing Homeowners Association, Inc.
87A04-1107-PL-380
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of request for injunctive relief and final judgment entry in favor of Tabassum Parkar, Arshad Husain, John Mattingly Homes and Lakeridge Crossing Homeowners Association.

Amy and Steven Cerajewski v. Erin and Robert Kieffner
82A01-1109-SC-401
Small claims. Dismisses an interlocutory appeal of a Vanderburgh County small claims court’s denial of a couple’s motion to correct venue, in a case alleging breach of contract and fraud resulting from a real estate transaction in Posey County.

James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch v. C. Joseph Yast
45A05-1107-CT-377
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of motion for summary judgment in favor of Yast, finding no evidence exists to support the plaintiffs’ claims that Yast abused his qualified common interest privilege, and holds that statements Yast made were not defamatory, but rather communicated that he was withdrawing as counsel due to conflict of interest.

Joshua Alford v. State of Indiana
49A02-1109-CR-816
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, holding that Alford’s false review of his father’s cleaning company on Angie’s List violated a no-contact order, as Alford used an intermediary in an effort to harass his father.

Joshua J. Sharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1109-CR-422
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a jury trial of felony possession of a controlled substance found during a police search. Appellate court determined evidence shows defendant did not restrict his consent to search his vehicle, and so no Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution violation occurred.

Isaac Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-PC-548
Post-conviction. Affirms trial court’s denial of a post-conviction relief petition, finding that Isaac Jones’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by res judicata.

Debra A. Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1110-CR-528
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment excluding the testimony of an allegedly biased material witness, finding it does not constitute reversible error in the felony theft conviction case.
 

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT