ILNews

Opinions Aug. 12, 2011

August 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

LaDon Moore v. Review Board and Whitington Homes and Services
93A02-1005-EX-529
Civil. Affirms finding that Moore was discharged by her employer for just cause. Finds that publishing the names of the parties involved in cases with the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development is essential to eliminate confusion and to increase efficiency.

Imari C. Butler v. State of Indiana
49A04-1012-CR-775
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony criminal confinement, and Class D felony sexual battery. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting portions of Butler’s taped statement, but the error was harmless.  

Farah, LLC, et al. v. Architura Corporation
49A05-1012-PL-793
Civil plenary. Reverses award of $26,166 in principal and $15,000 in attorney fees on Architura’s mechanic’s lien claim. The principal mechanic’s lien amount must be reduced to $7,500. Remands for the trial court to recalculate the amount of prejudgment interest to which Architura is entitled. Affirms decision to not award damages on Farah’s claim that Architura failed to adequately inspect the premises and affirms the amount of damages awarded to Farah for Architura’s breaches of contract.

James C. Purcell v. Old National Bank
49A02-1005-CT-482
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted judgment on the evidence in favor of Old National Bank regarding Purcell’s negligence and constructive fraud claims because ONB did not owe Purcell a duty as a subordinate creditor. Reverses grant of judgment on the evidence on Purcell’s other claims because answers to an earlier interrogatory present a genuine issue of material fact regarding those claims. Affirms denial of ONB’s motion for attorney fees and costs because Purcell’s claims were not groundless. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael R. Arbuckle v. Ann C. Arbuckle (NFP)
49A02-1009-DR-1083
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of emergency motion to review commissioner’s sale.

Johnny W. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1230
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1200
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and consecutive sentences for two counts of murder.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.D.C., et al.; A.M.C. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1102-JT-120
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Amit Patel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Patel’s motion for dismissal.  

Jerome White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Christopher Kimbrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-PC-1012
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paternity of S.K., et al.; J.K. v. J.K. (NFP)
50A03-1101-JP-39
Juvenile. Affirms denial of mother’s motion to modify custody. Affirms denial of father’s motion for attorney fees.

Carl S. Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1005-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Donald H. Westfall v. Wal-Mart Stores East (NFP)
77A01-1012-CT-665
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Wal-Mart Stores East in Westfall’s complaint alleging negligence against Wal-Mart.

Kevin J. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1283
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted robbery.

Dillon L. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1012-CR-684
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary, three counts of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class D felony criminal confinement. Reduces sentence by running all counts concurrent to each other for the aggregate sentence of 10 years, with six years executed and four years served on probation.

Steven Everett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1012-CR-1396
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended and Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08.

Robert Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A04-1012-CR-803
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.B., et al.; W.B. v. IDCS (NFP)
88A01-1011-JT-571
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

J.M. v. J.W. (NFP)
36A01-1104-DR-164
Domestic relation. Reverses order modifying custody, parenting time, and child support. Remands with instructions.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.R.; M.R. v. IDCS, et al. (NFP)
49A04-1012-JT-810
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kevin J. Byers v. Consolidated Union, Inc. (NFP)
52A04-1012-CT-767
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Consolidated Union in Byers’ suit alleging negligence and failure to contract for insurance coverage as requested.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.S., et al.; C.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
79A04-1101-JT-54
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Paternity of C.P.; B.S. v. J.P. (NFP)
90A02-1102-JP-92
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal of denial of B.S.’s petition to modify custody.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT