Opinions Aug. 27, 2012

August 27, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ian McCullough v. State of Indiana
Post-conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s judgment that trial counsel was not ineffective, holding that McCullough failed to carry his burden to show that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Successor in interest to The Money Store Investment Corp., f/d/b/a First Union Small Business Capital v. Neal A. Summers, et al.
Civil plenary/rehearing. Reverses prior appellate ruling that complaint was not timely, affirms in part and remands in part, finding that the trial court erred in calculating a judgment of $627,570 in favor of restaurateur Paula Phillips by miscalculating profits against debt. It upheld the judgment on interest expense, salaries, taxes and attorney fees.

Joseph Meizelis v. Dana Durbin and Debra Durbin
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court properly found that Meizelis lacked a present interest in the Durbins’ farm and could not prevent a settlement between Dana and Debra Durbin. Remands with instructions to strike Meizelis’ lis pendens notice.

Mitzi Bosley v. Niktob, LLC, Design Industries, Inc., Peg Rail, Inc., and Originnovations, Inc.
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Niktob, holding that the arguments it presented in ejectment court were the same as those presented in another action in environmental court.

Robert Dowell v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. The court gave the jury an additional instruction on accomplice liability without re-reading the rest of the instructions. Remands for a new trial.

Michael Butler and Amanda Butler v. Jerry Hall and Susan Hall (NFP)
Small claims. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of defendants.

Arbie Clay, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class C felony robbery.
Lloyd E. Lynch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony confinement.
Ayman Eldosougi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

K.C., on Behalf of M.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms delinquency order requiring payment of certain fees.
Robert Cruser, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Guido Joiko; Kenneth Schaaf v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Guido Joiko, and Geralyn Bradley (NFP)
Guardianship. Affirms trial court ruling that Joiko was of sound mind when he executed a revised trust.

Larry Schine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms in part and remands in part with orders to vacate a conviction of possession of cocaine, which the court ruled violated double jeopardy of a simultaneous conviction of dealing in cocaine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.J.-G., Minor Child, and her Mother, S.J.-G.; S.J.-G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile/termination. Affirms trial court order terminating mother S.J.-G’s parental rights to A.J.-G.
Terry Chanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion for jail time credit.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.