ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2012

August 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinons prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald Gregory Huls v. State of Indiana

64A04-1110-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms convictions of criminal recklessness, one as a Class D felony and one as a Class C felony. Affirms denial of motion for mistrial because the prosecutor’s isolated comment did not have a probable persuasive effect on the jury and did not place Huls in grave peril. His proposed jury instructions incorrectly stated the law on self-defense or the evidence did not support giving them.  

PNC Bank, National Association, et al. v. LA Development, Inc., Andrew L. Arbuckle, et al., and INTA, LLC v. PNC Bank, National Association, et al.
41A01-1107-MF-314
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses decision in favor of INTA in an action filed by PNC against LA Development, INTA, and two individuals. The subordination agreement is ambiguous, but concludes PNC did not relinquish all of its rights and remedies in the subordination agreement. Because PNC has shown the requisite provisions of Indiana Code 32-30-5-1 have been satisfied and PNC did not relinquish its mandatory right to the appointment of a receiver, the trial court order is erroneous. Remands for further proceedings.

Janet M. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A04-1109-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms denial of Wright’s motion to suppress as to the marijuana found beside her house and the trial court’s deferring to rule on all evidence found inside the home and outbuildings due to insufficient evidence to address that matter. Remands for further proceedings.

Brian L. Millard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1201-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Preload, Inc. v. Hammond Water Works Department and Jeffrey Porter General Contractors, Inc. (NFP)
45A05-1201-PL-22
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court order to the extent that the arbitration order says that Preload must be joined as a party in the arbitration between Jeffrey Porter and Hammond Water Works. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Mathias concurs in result.

Paul Edward McMinn v. Lisa Stephanie McMinn (NFP)
20A03-1106-DR-245
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the order which established that child H.McM. should continue his secondary education at a private, parochial high school. Remands for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT