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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT