Opinions Aug. 12, 2011

August 12, 2011
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
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
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
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
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)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of emergency motion to review commissioner’s sale.

Johnny W. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

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

Jerome White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Christopher Kimbrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paternity of S.K., et al.; J.K. v. J.K. (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted robbery.

Dillon L. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

J.M. v. J.W. (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kevin J. Byers v. Consolidated Union, Inc. (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Paternity of C.P.; B.S. v. J.P. (NFP)
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal of denial of B.S.’s petition to modify custody.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?