ILNews

Opinions Dec. 13, 2011

December 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Steven Spangler and Heidi Brown v. Barbara Bechtel, Expectations Women's Health and
Childbearing Center, and St. Vincent Randolph Hospital

49S05-1012-CV-703
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Bechtel and the health and childbearing center. The parents’ separate actions seeking damages for emotional distress from experiencing the stillbirth of their child are not barred by the Indiana Child Wrongful Death Act or the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard M. Clokey v. Penny M. Bosley Clokey
84A01-1009-DR-450
Domestic relation. On rehearing, clarifies the issue of Richard Clokey’s ability to satisfy the maintenance obligation. Even though the trial court did not state so explicitly, the court considered his sources of income and his ability to pay the maintenance. Affirms original opinion in every respect.

Richard and Elizabeth Ryan v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and Elaine E. English d/b/a Agri-Town Agency
56A03-1101-PL-75
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and English. The right of first refusal here was personal and terminated upon the death of Mary Keen as the last surviving grantor of the right. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Ryans’ right arose only if the Keens as the sellers offered the land for sale. Judge Baker concurs with separate opinion.

Robert E. Posey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1103-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Donald Hurm v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1101-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting and remands with instructions to revise Hurm’s sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents in part.

The Huntington National Bank v. George P. Broadbent (NFP)
49A05-1012-CC-759
Civil collection. Reverses denial of Huntington’s motion for summary judgment and remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the bank and conduct a hearing to determine reasonable attorney fees.

Clifton J. Savage v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-196
Criminal. Vacates Class D felony theft conviction and remands to the trial court to enter judgment accordingly. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Nicholas Ryan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-230
Criminal. Reverses five convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, but affirms five other convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement and eight Class B felony robbery convictions. Affirms sentence and remands to the trial court to amend its sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

M. Dale Palmer v. Kay Palmer (NFP)
32A01-1103-DR-108
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s property division in dissolution proceedings.

Edna Kelly v. Johnny Conway, d/b/a Conway Service (NFP)
49A02-1008-PL-1029
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment for Conway in suit alleging breach of contract.

Almaz M. Whyte v. Sam Christie (NFP)
45A05-1010-SC-749
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Christie and against Whyte for $5,250 for the balance due on a verbal loan agreement made between the parties.

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT