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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT