Opinions Aug. 31, 2010

August 31, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday.
Indiana Supreme Court
Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Jannis Fisher, et al.
Civil. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals holding that the Medicaid transportation services providers do not have a private right to sue the state for cutting the transportation reimbursement rates. Concludes the state invited any court error with respect to the right of Medicaid recipients to sue for relief and it will be held to its concession that recipients have a private right of action in this case. Remands with instructions to allow the recipients to present evidence establishing the transportation to which they may be entitled by Section 30(A), that they have been or will be denied the services to which they are entitled, and what relief they are due. Justice Sullivan did not participate.

Today's opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Co.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of diversity suit against insurer. ACE had no duty to provide Hayes Lemmerz International’s lawyers with legal advice and didn’t breach its duty to defend by failing to advise HLI that its law firm wasn’t defending the suit properly.

Daniel J. Wickens and Pamela Wickens, and Mark E. Shere v. Shell Oil Co. and Shell Oil Products Co., LLC
09-2737 and 09-2620
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s ruling regarding calculation, deducting Colleen Shere’s fees from Mark Shere’s attorneys’ fees award in case involving corrective action costs. Remands for further proceedings, and affirms remainder of the District Court’s judgment.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy Hamby, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial for declaratory relief for Hamby and other homeowners. The Board of Zoning Appeals and Area Plan Commission of Warrick County had approved a variance to allow a permit to be issued to another homeowner for a wind turbine exceeding the maximum height requirement in a multiple family zoning district; however the trial court’s reversal of the BZA’s decision to grant the variance is not being appealed.

James R. Meier, et al. v. Homeowners of Mallard's Landing, Inc. (NFP)
Civil. Finds the trial court erred in granting the homeowners’ association’s summary judgment without first determining the validity of the association’s formation. After the trial court makes it determination, it can then decide whether certain damages are appropriate regarding Meier’s lots.

James Wright, et al. v. Camaro Costello, et al. (NFP)
Civil. Affirms trial court’s ruling transferring case to Vanderburgh County because the business property he tried to purchase is located there, making the county a preferred venue.

Donald Fisher v. Tower Bank and Trust Co. (NFP)
Civil. Reaffirms and clarifies its decision that the trial court properly granted summary judgment. Fisher notes the appeals court cited evidence not properly designated to the trial court for summary judgment purposes. The appeals court acknowledges it referenced an appraisal report not property designated for summary judgment purposes but the information garnered from the report is contained within materials that were properly designated for such purposes.

Lori A. Deardorff (Tilden) v. Kevin L. Deardorff (NFP)
Civil. Because the appeals court is unable to address any of Lori’s allegations of error, it affirms the trial court’s order to reduce Kevin’s child support obligation. Lori, pro se, did not cite evidence or explain application in the record supporting her claims.

Dennis and Lisa Morrow v. Walter and Lois Kucharski (NFP)
Civil. Affirms $45,025.56 judgment in favor of the Kucharskis involving a private nuisance claim. Denies the Kucharskis’ request for appellate attorney’s fees.

James T. Parado v. Maria J. Parado (Mast) (NFP)
Civil. Affirms denial of James’ petition to modify custody and granting Maria’s petition to modify custody.

Max Jacobus, et al. v. Peggy L. Proffitt (NFP)
Civil. Reverses judgment and remands for trial court to establish an easement of necessity entirely on Proffitt’s property which complies with the applicable ordinance regarding the proper width of easements.

W.G. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Rules the Review Board properly affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision dismissing W.G.’s appeal as untimely.

Pioneer Auto Truck Sales, Inc. v. Dolores Burch (NFP)
Civil. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s award of benefits to Burch because medical report met statutory requirements.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of L.R.; A.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

J.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms J.L.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, and Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.O.S.; A.M. Jr. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

F.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms modification of F.D.’s placement and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction.

John Ray Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

Timothy William Woolum, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation and order that Woolum serve the portion of sentence that previously had been suspended to probation.

Christopher Ostack v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence and rules the state presented sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim.

William J. VanHorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his conviction following his guilty plea to burglary.

Brandon L. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate Smith’s conviction of and sentence for criminal confinement as a Class B felony, to impose conviction of and an appropriate sentence for criminal confinement as a Class D felony, and to conduct a hearing to determine an appropriate amount of restitution. Affirms in all other respects.

Emily Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A felony dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance.

Grante Fricklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Charles E. Hubbard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hubbard and that his 135-year sentence is not inappropriate.  

James R. Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Rules the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences totaling six years for two Class D felony counts of battery resulting in bodily injury to a person under fourteen years of age that were one episode of criminal conduct; reverses and remands for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Justin Sparks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Rules trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Sparks to serve the one year that remained on his sentence for battery after his probation revocation.

Finnegan J. Coley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses and remands for the trial court to enter the advisory sentence of 1 1/2 years on the Class D felony conviction for possession of cocaine, to be served concurrent with Coley’s 16-year sentence on the Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The State concedes the error that the same evidence of his being found in possession of a handgun was used to convict him for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and to enhance the cocaine conviction to a Class C felony, which is in contravention of Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.

Timothy Treacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Stevie W. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Kevin H. Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Rules state presented sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense.

Ovidio Rosario v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court
Dora Brown, Ben Kindle, and Sonjia Graf v. Dept. of Local Government Finance (NFP)
Tax. Affirms in part and reverses in part the Department of Local Government Finance’s approval of the Gregg Township Board’s loan resolution for the 2009 tax year. Remands for the Department of Local Government Finance to determine what portion of the loan amount accurately reflects the fire department’s provision of ambulance service to Gregg Township in Morgan County.

Indiana Supreme Court granted 1 transfer and denied transfer to 22 cases for the week ending Aug. 27.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.