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. 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