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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT