Opinions Aug. 15, 2012

August 15, 2012
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of five years of previously suspended sentence.

Lloyd W. Mezick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

D.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in serious injury.

Victor Salazar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Larry Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Danny K. Peet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Vernon L. Mefford v. Lori Little and Jason McCord (NFP)
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)
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?