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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT