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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT