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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT