ILNews

Opinions August 24, 2011

August 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Arboleda Ortiz v. Thomas Webster, Doctor
10-2012
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
08A05-1101-CR-21
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
49A02-1009-CT-998
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
40A01-1011-CR-553
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
49A05-1011-JV-736
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
02A03-1012-TR-624
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.
49A04-1011-CT-679
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
82A01-1004-CR-154
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.
49A04-1006-PL-394
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
49A02-1101-PL-4
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)
57A03-1102-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony aiding in burglary.

Anthony W. Taylor v. Mark Sevier (NFP)
52A02-1010-MI-1252
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Taylor’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Troy T. Hardesty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1012-CR-819
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

D.R., Alleged to be CHINS; E.D. v. IDCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1012-JC-1416
Juvenile. Affirms determination that D.R. was a child in need of services.

Terrell B. Wofford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony battery.
 
Sanchez M. Ellis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1012-CR-673
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)
84A01-1012-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation and imposition of 18 months of previously suspended sentence.

Peter Johnson v. Keith Sove (NFP)
06A01-1102-SC-73
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)
14A01-1012-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms denial of jail credit time.

State of Indiana v. Steven Hollin (NFP)
69A05-1101-PC-113
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)
27A02-1011-CR-1285
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Thomas E. Curtis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1101-CR-48
Criminal. Reverses conviction of felony murder and remands with instructions.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT