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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT