ILNews

Opinions Dec. 12, 2012

December 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ponziano Construction Services, Inc. v. Quadri Enterprises, LLC
45A05-1112-CC-661
Civil collection. Reverses award of $16,000 to Ponziano on its breach of contract claim against Quadri and the denial of Ponziano’s rquest to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. Affirms the award of $8,000 in attorney fees to Ponziano and remands with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Ponziano for $48,483.43, order sale of the property subject to the $45,549.43 lien, and determine the existence, extent, and outcome of a potential priority dispute between Ponziano and Wells Fargo.

Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myers (NFP)
71A03-1204-DR-153
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying primary physical custody of the parties’ two children from Wilson to Myers.

Christopher A. Merder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A04-1205-CR-229
Criminal. Affirms Merder is not entitled to pretrial credit for time served in Kentucky from May to August 2009, but finds Merder is entitled to pretrial credit for the period from Aug. 6, 2009, to Aug. 14, 2009. Remands for further proceedings.

James Fusco v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1204-CR-182
Criminal. Reverses sentence following revocation of probation and remands.

Tymon Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Earl McClendon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-CR-282
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion requesting the return of a firearm. Remands with instructions.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT