Opinions August 24, 2011

August 24, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Arboleda Ortiz v. Thomas Webster, Doctor
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry McKinney.
Civil. Vacates summary judgment for Dr. Webster and remands with instructions that the case proceed to trial. This is the second time the case has come on appeal and the first time, the 7th Circuit reversed summary judgment for the doctor on the grounds that Ortiz had established fact disputes on the seriousness of his eye condition and the constitutionally of Webster’s delayed response. The record had changed very little on remand yet the District Court granted summary judgment for the doctor. Judge Kanne dissents.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jesus A. Villagrana v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. Villagrana was negligent, but the child neglect statute requires intent beyond negligence.

Kerwin Masten and Heather Masten v. AMCO Insurance Company
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for AMCO Insurance Co. The trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that no underinsured motorist coverage is available to the Mastens. Remands for further proceedings.

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses on interlocutory appeal the order finding that Gilmore was no longer indigent and that he had waived or forfeited his right to appointed counsel by his obstreperous conduct. The trial court abused its discretion by finding that Gilmore was not indigent and it retains the ability to order him to reimburse the costs of his defense to the extent he is able to do so. Gilmore is entitled to a hearing during which he should be warned that if his difficult behavior persists, the trial court will find he has chosen self-representation by his own conduct. Remands for further proceedings.

S.G. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Affirms in part and reverses in part S.G.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony receiving stolen property if committed by an adult. The facts of this case do not satisfy the requirements of a custodial interrogation and the introduction of S.G.’s statements did not violate Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a restitution order in an amount allegedly greater than the victim’s actual loss. Orders a new restitution hearing held if the state desires.

Carrie Chapman v. Irrevocable Trust of Stephen Chapman
Trust. Affirms trial court’s decision with regard to its exercise of jurisdiction over the trust proceedings. Carrie has not established that the trial court could not or should not have exercised jurisdiction over the trust as the subject matter of the trust reformation and the Chapmans’ divorce proceedings is not the same or substantially the same. The trial court erred when it determined the trustees weren’t required to establish that the dissolution was unforeseeable. Because the trustees failed to prove that the dissolution at the time of distribution was unforeseen or not anticipated as required, reverses modification of trust that delayed distribution to Stephen until after the dissolution is final or any appeal therefrom.

Dalmas Maurice Otieno Anyango, et al. v. Rolls Royce Corp., et al.
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Rolls Royce and other appellees’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens the Anyanagos’ complaint for strict liability and wrongful death. Even if the trial court had not granted the motion to dismiss, the law of British Columbia would apply in Indiana, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.

Matthew Erin Koch v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms kidnapping, robbery, and battery convictions because evidence of probative value was presented at trial from which a jury could find Koch kidnapped Le in Indiana and that the robbery and battery offenses were integrally related. Vacates Koch’s convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement because of double jeopardy. Reverses 45-year aggregate sentence and remands with instructions to impose an aggregate sentence of 30 years. Judge Riley dissents regarding the sentence revision.

Travelers Insurance Companies, et al. v. Maplehurst Farms, Inc., et al.
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Maplehurst that directed Travelers to reimburse Maplehurst for the pre-notice costs and indemnity expenses. The trial court erred in doing so in light of Dreaded Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. Maplehurst is not entitled to an award of its attorney fees from Travelers. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in Travelers’ favor as to those costs and expenses and for further proceedings. Judge May dissents.

James R. Sapp v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part the denial of Sapp’s motion to correct error, which challenged a summary judgment order upon the claims of Flagstar Bank against Sapp for breach of contract, theft, and unjust enrichment. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether or not the bank’s loss of the check and two-month acquiescence was a failure to exercise ordinary care regarding the breach of contract claim. Sapp is entitled to summary judgment on the theft claim because Flagstar didn’t show that Sapp’s control was without authorization such that he could have been found to have criminally stolen the funds. He is also entitled to summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. Reverses award of attorney fees for Flagstar. Remands for trial only on the contract claim.

Larry D. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony aiding in burglary.

Anthony W. Taylor v. Mark Sevier (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Taylor’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Troy T. Hardesty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

D.R., Alleged to be CHINS; E.D. v. IDCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms determination that D.R. was a child in need of services.

Terrell B. Wofford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony battery.
Sanchez M. Ellis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery, Class D felony battery, and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

James J. Duchene v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation and imposition of 18 months of previously suspended sentence.

Peter Johnson v. Keith Sove (NFP)
Small claims. Affirms denial of Johnson’s motion to correct error following the denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of Sove.

William Sebastian, Jr.v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of jail credit time.

State of Indiana v. Steven Hollin (NFP)
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Hollin’s petition for post-conviction review. Remands with instructions to deny the petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian E. Crist, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Thomas E. Curtis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses conviction of felony murder and remands with instructions.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.