Opinions Dec. 17, 2010

December 17, 2010
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
Criminal. Grants rehearing to clarify holding on Thomas’ claim of mental illness and reaffirms prior decision.

Judd Ponsler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms two Class C felony child solicitation convictions.

Rodney Waye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Doris Coffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation and that Coffman serve all of her suspended sentences.

Michael A. Gilbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

Darren R. Locke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?