ILNews

Opinions Dec. 14, 2010

December 14, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., et al. v. OPC, Inc., et al.
82A02-1003-MF-339
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants OPC Inc. and others in a property dispute between a local congregation and the national church. When the neutral principles of law approach is applied correctly, the appellants prevail. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the national church and other appellants, together with a declaratory judgment that Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church has no right, title or interest in the Oak Hill Property and a constructive trust on that property in favor of the Presbytery.

The Hunt Construction Group, Inc., et al. v. Shannon D. Garrett
49A02-1001-CT-86
Civil tort. Reverses partial summary judgment for Garrett on Hunt Construction’s vicarious liability because it is inapplicable as the general contractor/subcontractor relationship doesn’t exist. Affirms summary judgment to Garrett on the issue that Hunt owed a duty of care to Garrett by virtue of its contracts. Judge Friedlander concurs in part and dissents in part.

Kathy Niegos v. Arcelor Mittal Burns Harbor LLC, f/k/a ISG Burns Harbor, LLC
93A02-1007-EX-762
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Niegos claim, pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act, against her late husband’s former employer. Her failure to notify ArcelorMittal before entering into third-party settlements is fatal to her ODA claim.

Chijoike Bomani Ben-Yisrayl, f/k/a Greagree Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-332
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder.

Roy Shane Arensman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A05-1005-CR-509
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to register as a sex offender as a Class D felony.

Oscar Iraheta-Rosales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1005-CR-302
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

John Eddie Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1003-CR-239
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Bronskey Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms three convictions of dealing cocaine as Class B felonies.

SHF Enterprises, Inc. v. Richard D. Hailey, et al. (NFP)
49A02-0910-CV-962
Civil. Reverses order correcting the amount of damages owed by the Haileys on SHF’s complaint for breach of lease and confirming its intent to deny SHF’s request for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest.

Quentin S. Phipps v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1002-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class A felony attempted murder, Class B felony attempted armed robbery, Class C felony escape, Class D felony auto theft, and three counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Clayton Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-549
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT