ILNews

Opinions Aug. 14, 2012

August 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jason Halasa v. ITT Educational Services Inc.
11-3305
Civil. Affirms summary judgment ruling and costs in favor of ITT. Jason Halasa, who directed the company’s Lathrop, Calif., campus for six months in 2009, sued the school on a claim that his rights were violated under the False Claims Act. ITT said Halasa was fired for showing poor management skills and delivering inadequate results.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Andrew Stetler v. State of Indiana
01A04-1201-CR-1
Criminal. Affirms two counts of child molestation and being a habitual offender and resulting sentence of 90 years, concluding that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury trial conviction and that the sentence was not inappropriate.

Harold O. Fulp, Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Ruth E. Fulp Revocable Trust Dated June 29, 2005
41A01-1111-TR-530
Trust. Reverses in part and remands in part, holding that Ruth Fulp, as trust settlor, could properly execute a purchase agreement for the sale of trust property and that Gilliland, as trustee, did not tortiously interfere with the purchase agreement by rescinding the purchase agreement.

Carlin Iltzsch v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1164
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions a trial court’s restitution order after finding evidence supporting the order is based on bare, unsworn assertions.

In Re: Rueth Development Company, An Indiana Limited Partnership
45A03-1110-CP-468
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court granting appellees relief under Trial Rule 60(B) and trial court preliminary injunction on capital distribution and attorney fees, but reverses trial court ruling allowing appellees to pursue their claims as a derivative action. Remanded to the trial court to continue dissolution proceedings.

In the Matter of the Paternity of I.B., R.P. v. M.B., As Next of Friend of I.B. (NFP)
84A01-1109-JP-456
Juvenile paternity. Affirms order establishing R.P.’s paternity of minor child, I.B.

Joshua P. Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-PC-1183
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on convictions of robbery and resisting law enforcement.

Richard D. Boring v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A04-1201-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Brandon Rhonte McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1112-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Stacey Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony robbery and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Sadeeq Danbala v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Billy D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1112-CR-1195
Criminal. Affirms sentence for failure to comply with conditions related to his status as a sex offender.

C. Dennis Wegner & C. Dennis Wegner & Associates, Professional Corporation v. Michael S. Miller, D.O., and Cohen Garelick & Glazier (NFP)
49A02-1112-CT-1159
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part, reversing and vacating trial court’s award of attorney fees for a protective order on Miller’s behalf and affirms trial court denying expenses on other motions on Miller’s behalf.

Stephen R. Harvey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1201-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.
 

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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT