ILNews

Opinions Aug. 15, 2012

August 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Reko D. Levels v. State of Indiana
82A01-1201-CR-25
Criminal. Reverses convictions of battery and public intoxication as Class B misdemeanors. Levels did not validly waive his right to a jury trial.

JPMCC 2006-CIBC 14 Eads Parkway, LLC v. DBL Axel, LLC, David Richman, Lynette Gridley, as Trustee of the Hartunian Family Trust (u/d/t dated November 8, 1989), Black Diamond Realty, LLC, et al.
15A01-1201-PL-23
Civil plenary. Holds that the trial court erred when it denied JPMCC’s motion for summary judgment on DBL’s complaint for declaratory judgment and when it denied JPMCC’s motion for summary judgment against the guarantors on its claim for breach of the guaranty with respect to the first two installments of the nuisance award. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the guarantors on the question of their liability for the balance of the debt and the grant of summary judgment for DBL on JPMCC’s tort claims. Remands for further proceedings on the amount of the guarantors’ liability to JPMCC.

Mary Barrix and Joe Barrix, Jr. v. Kristopher Jackson and Graves Plumbing Co. Inc.
28A04-1202-CT-82
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on the evidence against the Barrixes and in favor of Jackson and Graves Plumbing on the Barrixes’ suit for negligence following a car accident. Having thus afforded the trial court no opportunity to rule upon the specific portions of Dr. Fulton’s testimony that may have been admissible, the Barrixes invited the trial court’s error and are not entitled to relief. Any error in the trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Fulton’s testimony or the underlying medical records was harmless and thus not a basis for reversal.

Michael R. Jent v. Fort Wayne Police Department
02A03-1108-MI-388
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment for the police department on Jent’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief asking the court to compel the Fort Wayne Police Department to disclose requested records. The undisputed evidence shows that Jent’s request does not identify with reasonable particularity the records he sought.

Michael K. Curts, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy J. Curts, Deceased v. Miller's Health Systems, Inc. a/k/a Miller's Merry Manor, Logansport, LLC, et al.
09A02-1112-CT-1191
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Miller’s Merry Manor on Michael Curts’ lawsuit for wrongful death, breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Concludes that nurses can potentially have sufficient expertise to qualify as experts for purposes of the medical standards of care and medical causation, but the nurse in this case does not qualify. There are no genuine issues of material fact.

In re the Term. of the Parent--Child Rel. of H.S. and N.S. and S.S. & D.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1200
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Douglas C. Holland v. Rising Sun/Ohio County First, Inc., Ohio County, Rising Sun, Quin Min, and Kirk and Michelle Neace (NFP)
58A01-1112-PL-616
Civil plenary. Affirms order denying Holland’s request to quiet title through adverse possession but reforming the deed in favor of defendants.

Tracy Lynn Weston, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Clinton Dale Weston, Deceased v. Scott D. Longevin, M.D., and Preferred Emergency Specialists, Inc. (NFP)
21A01-1112-PL-583
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of Dr. Longevin and Preferred Emergency Specialists’ motion for summary judgment and remands for further proceedings.

Tondalay Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1111-CR-1038
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Joshua Ellis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1203-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of five years of previously suspended sentence.

Lloyd W. Mezick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1112-CR-1170
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance, Class D felony intimidation, Class A resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor battery on a police officer and two counts of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Derek Dwane Hardy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1109-PC-445
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

D.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-JV-29
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor intimidation if committed by an adult.

Floor Mart of Indiana, Inc., Annesse M. Covey, Cherly C. Covey, and William Covey v. Norman Fischer and Julie Fischer (NFP)
45A03-1111-PL-501
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment entered in favor of the Fischers on their complaint for fraud. Remands for further proceedings.

David M. Craft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1203-CR-140
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in serious injury.

Victor Salazar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1101-PC-150
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Larry Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1111-CR-624
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Danny K. Peet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1203-CR-185
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Vernon L. Mefford v. Lori Little and Jason McCord (NFP)
53A01-1110-SC-495
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Little and McCord on Mefford’s claim for damages resulting from a breach of a lease of residential real estate.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.S., Jr., D.S., and J.S., minor children, and C.S., Sr., father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A04-1111-JT-641
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT