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. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues