Opinions Aug. 9, 2011

August 9, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Buse, Kathleen Payne, et al. v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s conclusion that four counts of the property owners’ complaint constitute a public lawsuit against the Luce Township Regional Sewer District, pursuant to Indiana Code 34-6-2-124. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., et al. v. Save the Valley, et al.
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s determination that Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. (IKEC) may not relitigate the issue of associational standing arising from Save the Valley, Inc. v. Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp., 820 N.E.2d 677 (2005). Holds that law-of-the-case doctrine bars IKEC from doing so, and that the Indiana Supreme Court has previously held that groups challenging IKEC’s solid waste permit could seek administrative review under the doctrine of associational standing.

Stephen M. Scheckel v. NLI, Inc.
Small claim. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of NLI. Holds that the trial court erred when it found that the condition of the tree on NLI’s property that damaged the appellant’s property did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Remands for the entry of judgment consistent with the COA opinion.

Brian Haehl v. David Montgomery and Phyliss Crumbo
Trust. Affirms trial court’s denial of attorney fees and additional compensation in favor of Haehl, reverses the court’s award of attorney fees in favor of the appellees, and remands for the court to revise its 2010 order consistent with the COA opinion. Holds that the court’s award of attorney fees under Ind. Code 30-4-3-22(e) was erroneous.

Bethany Quiring, Linda Ann Johnston f/k/a Linda Ann Lougher, et al. v. Geico General Insurance Company
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Quiring’s motion to dismiss or stay, finding she was not a resident of her mother’s household when she sought underinsured motorist benefits under a GEICO insurance policy issued to her mother.

Joseph A. Kelley v. Jagdish Patel, Jayandra Patel, d/b/a Economy Inn and Indiana Insurance
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on the estate’s claim of spoliation of evidence, holding that a cause of action is not available under the facts of the case.

Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Ronald Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and resisting law enforcement.

Michelle Hager v. Robert and Sue Faris (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees.

Gabriel L. Hill v. Jana E. Hill (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s award of attorney fees to wife and finds the amount appropriate. Affirms division of marital estate and child support order.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.K., et al.; D.A. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jennifer Curts v. David Curts (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s judgment in divorce, stating appellant failed to present a cogent argument on any claims on appeal.

Jeremy Klakamp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Tommy D. Ford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.D., et al.; J.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Danielle L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

The Matter of the 2008 Hancock County Tax Sale (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s order, holding that the court committed prima facie error in finding it lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of appellant’s claim. Remands to the trial court with instructions to address appellant’s petition for payment of redemption interest.

Gary Moody v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of disorderly conduct.

J.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s placement of J.G. with the Department of Correction.

Beverly A. Fussner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to allow the state to reopen its case after the state had rested.

James Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

I.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s order that I.M. pay restitution, holding there is no evidence that the court engaged in inquiry sufficient to determine whether I.M. would be able to pay restitution. Remands for new restitution hearing.

Andre L. Gorman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug and related charges.

Robert Holland III v. Country Wide Home Loans, Inc. (NFP)
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion set aside judgment, finding no allegations justifying relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Denies appellee’s request for attorney fees, finding Holland did not pursue his claim in bad faith.  

Terry T. Miles, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that Miles violated the terms of his home detention.

Dean C. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Aaron Davidson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues