ILNews

Opinions Dec. 17, 2010

December 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Adoption of L.D.; A.B. and N.E. v. Jo.D. and Ja.D.
49S02-1006-CV-330
Civil. Vacates adoption decree and remands with directions to grant mother A.B.’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion. The paternal grandparents and their attorney did not perform the diligent search required by the Due Process Clause to inform A.B. of their adoption petition.

Indiana Court of Appeals
D.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1006-JV-391
Juvenile. Affirms commitment to the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction following a delinquency adjudication.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Karl Schmidt Unisia Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, et al.
09-4001
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of International Union, et al., on their counterclaim to compel arbitration. The collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause creates a presumption that the union’s grievance is arbitrable. Because the CBA does not expressly exclude the grievance from arbitration and Karl Schmidt Unisia has not shown the most forceful evidence of the parties’ intent to exclude the grievance from arbitration, Karl Schmidt Unisia has not rebutted the presumption of arbitrability.

United States of America v. Charles Tanner
09-2370
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and life sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and attempted possession of 5 kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. There was no error in the prosecutor’s closing argument. Except for certain testimony regarding Tanner’s possession of a firearm on one occasion, all of the complained-of evidence was clearly admissible. The one exception was harmless. As for the jury instructions, the District Court’s only error was in giving an “ostrich” instruction lacking sufficient factual support in the trial record. That error was also harmless. The District Court properly calculated Tanner’s sentence, and a life sentence was reasonable under these circumstances.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, N.A.
01A04-1003-PL-247
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for First Merchants Bank in its complaint for fraud and seeking damages. The trial court should have considered Klinker’s affidavit in opposition to the bank’s summary judgment motion, but summary judgment for the bank was still appropriate.

Office of the Trustee of Wayne Township v. Deborah Brooks
49A05-1005-PL-341
Civil plenary. Affirms preliminary injunction ordering the Wayne Township Trustee to continue providing poor relief to Brooks. The trial court applied the proper standard of review – de novo – and the evidence is sufficient to support the decision in favor of Brooks.

Tara Simpson, et al. v. OP Property Management, LLC, et al.
49A05-1006-CT-355
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township in Simpson’s suit following an accident with a school bus driver. Simpson’s notice of tort claim was sufficient, the school district isn’t entitled to immunity and there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the school district and driver were negligent and whether Simpson was contributorily negligent or incurred the risk.

Edward Dawson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1001-CR-155
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of the grant of leave to Dawson to file a belated notice of appeal of his probation revocation order. Post-Conviction Rule 2 is available for direct appeals of convictions and sentences only and not for belated appeals of probation revocation orders.

Kelly Brockmann v. Robert Brockmann
02A04-1003-DR-246
Domestic relation. Reverses order compelling arbitration of a petition to modify custody filed by Robert. Concludes that the parties did not intend for Robert’s petition for modification of legal custody to be submitted to arbitration, or to otherwise submit to arbitration any and all possible future disputes that might arise between the parties.

Charles Saffold v. State of Indiana
49A05-1003-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms denial of Saffold’s motion to dismiss the charge of carrying a handgun without a license. It was not a violation for the officer to conduct a second pat-down search to determine whether Saffold had a gun after discovering ammunition on him and in his car.

Thomas W. Conrad v. State of Indiana
20A03-1004-CR-188
Criminal. Affirms conviction of criminal deviate conduct as a Class B felony. The trial court did not err in excluding evidence of Conrad’s victim’s past sexual conduct under Evidence Rules 412 and 403. Conrad’s rights under the United States and Indiana constitutions to effectively impeach and cross-examine witnesses were also not infringed upon by the trial court’s rulings.

Quintez Deloney v. State of Indiana
22A01-0906-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury. Remands to the trial court to reduce Deloney’s conviction of and sentence for attempted robbery from a Class A felony to a Class C felony.

John Eric Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony armed robbery and one count of Class C felony robbery.

Tyree L. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-173
Criminal. Grants rehearing to clarify holding on Thomas’ claim of mental illness and reaffirms prior decision.

Judd Ponsler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms two Class C felony child solicitation convictions.

Rodney Waye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1003-PC-393
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Doris Coffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1004-CR-240
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation and that Coffman serve all of her suspended sentences.

Michael A. Gilbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony dealing marijuana in an amount in excess of 10 pounds.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.W., et al.; M.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
55A01-1003-JT-196
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

James R. Robison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1006-CR-291
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony child molesting.

Darren R. Locke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1008-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after the forfeiture of Locke’s license for life.

Jason L. Hatchett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-718
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony attempted robbery, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and one count of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Martie Allen Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and the revocation of probation.

Donald Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1003-CR-168
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, three counts of Class A felony dealing in narcotics, Class B felony cocaine possession, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Saul R. Cruz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1004-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

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