ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2010

August 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Jeffrey Brunner
57A04-1003-CR-121
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions trial court’s October 2009 order modifying Brunner’s August 2000 conviction from a Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor. The parties raised two issues for review: whether the state’s appeal was authorized by law, and whether the trial court erred in granting Brunner’s petition for relief. The Court of Appeals held that Brunner’s request, nine years after the trial court’s entry of judgment, to reduce the Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor was a petition for post-conviction relief, from which the state may appeal. The COA also held Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-7(b) does not authorize the relief granted.
 
James D. Callaway, et al. v. Hannah Callaway, et al.
28A04-0908-CV-467
Civil. Affirms jury verdict upholding validity of the Last Will and Testament of John L. Callaway. His sons appealed on the issues of whether the will was published in accordance with Indiana Code Section 29-1-5-3; whether the will was executed and witnessed in accordance with Indiana Code Section 29-1-5-3; and whether the trial court abused its discretion when it rejected one of the sons’ proposed jury instructions.
 
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. Sargent Electric Company Ryerson Tull, Inc., et al.
45A04-0909-CV-524
Civil. Affirms grant of summary judgment to the third-party defendant, Sargent Electric Company. Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Inc., the third-party plaintiff in the trial court, appealed the grant of summary judgment and raised the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred when it granted Sargent’s motion for summary judgment. COA held Sargent did not breach its duty of care to Raytheon and that Raytheon is not entitled to indemnification from Sargent.
 
Rebecca Abbott v. Mainsource Financial Group
93A02-0912-EX-1261
Civil. Affirms single denial of Abbott’s application for adjustment of claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana against her employer, MainSource Financial Group. Abbott sought compensation for two prescription medications she alleged she must take indefinitely as a result of her work-related injury. A single hearing judge concluded the evidence did not support her contention that the prescriptions were necessitated by her work-related injury. When she petitioned the full board to review the single hearing judge’s decision, the board affirmed the judge’s decision following a hearing.
 
Patrick Roberts, et al. v. Robert A. Feitz, et al.
71A04-0910-CV-581
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellees-defendants Robert and Bob Feitz’ counterclaim, determining that the Feitzes are legal owners of the disputed access lane.
 
Crystal Summerlot v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1002-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance.

David L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-PC-141
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Lester Rowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-PC-1061
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Justin A. Heintzelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-0911-CR-648
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while suspended.
 
William Scott Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1003-CR-162
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft and Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.
 
Cynthia A. Soames v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources and Thomas A. Young/Young Oil Company (NFP)
49A05-0912-CV-726
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Soames’ verified petition for judicial review of the Natural Resource Commission’s final order requiring her to refrain from interfering with Thomas Young/Young Oil Company’s efforts to plug three oil wells on her property.
 
Angel Braster v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1002-PL-121
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order upholding a finding of the Department of Child Services, which substantiated that Braster had abused a child in her care.
 
Julian D. Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1004-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery, a Class B felony; and pointing a firearm, a Class D felony.
 
Larry O. Holder Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1002-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation and imposing the previously suspended portion of Holder’s sentence for burglary, a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT