ILNews

Opinions Dec. 18, 2013

December 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ralph Stockton v. Falls Auctioneers and Realtors and Peggy Buck as Trustee of the Peggy Buck Trust
18A05-1304-CT-160
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Peggy Buck as trustee of the Peggy Buck Trust on Stockon’s negligence suit. There are questions of fact regarding whether Stockton’s fall was caused in part by the length of the grass and whether Buck controlled the length of the grass. It cannot be said as a matter of law that Buck owed no duty to Stockton and Buck was not entitled to summary judgment on this basis. Remands for further proceedings.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D. v. Estate of Phyllis R. Barnes, Deceased, By Peggy Hood as Personal Representative, Joe Clinkenbeard, P.A., et al.
45A04-1107-CT-369
Civil tort. Dismisses appeal, finding I.C. 34-51-3-6 does not allow the state to intervene in otherwise private litigation, ostensibly to protect its interest in a punitive damage award.

Local 1963 of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Madison County, Indiana, Madison County Assessor, and Madison County Recorder
27A05-1301-CC-40
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Madison County defendants because as a matter of law, the county commissioners and county council had no authority to execute a collective bargaining agreement with UAW interfering with the independence of the assessor and recorder in appointing and discharging their deputies and employees.

George A. Nunley v. State of Indiana
10A04-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects. Judge Riley would deny the petition for rehearing. Dismisses state’s argument that the proper remedy for a late-filed amendment would have been for the court to remand for proceedings on an habitual offender sentence enhancement rather than the reversal that the COA ordered.

Paul J. Coy v. State of Indiana
48A02-1301-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony reckless homicide and two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness. Finds that the trial court properly declined to give a lesser-included instruction, there was not a fatal variation in the charging information, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering aggravators and failing to consider or give proper weight to mitigators, and Coy’s sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

In Re the Matter of the Paternity of T.L.T.: State of Indiana, as Child's Next Friend ex rel. (NFP)
71A04-1305-JP-214
Juvenile. Reverses grant of father’s motion to set aside the default judgment of paternity entered against him.

Willie Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony attempted obstruction of justice.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.B., K.B., T.B., and M.J., (Minor Children) and J.W., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
10A05-1303-JT-108
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Masoud Azimi on behalf of Amir Mansour Azimi, Deceased v. Clarian Health Partners d/b/a Methodist Hospital, Kyle Yancey, M.D., Steve S. Shin, M.D., David M. Kaehr, M.D., et al (NFP)
49A04-1304-CT-179
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the health care providers on Azimi’s medical malpractice complaint.

Timothy J. Fugate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1306-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and orders Fugate serve five years of the originally imposed eight-year suspended sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of : B.M.B. and B.A.B., Minor Children, R.B., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
21A01-1304-JT-188
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Frederick M. Dial v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1301-CR-15
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Thomas Dillman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1303-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for Class C felony failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death. Reverses order that court costs and a public-defender fee be paid from Dillman’s cash bond.

Lynda Rollins v. Graycor Construction Company, Inc., Graycor Industrial Constructors, Inc., Graycor Industrial Constructors, LLC, Graycor Construction Company, LLC, and Graycor, Inc. (NFP)
64A03-1307-CT-273
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Graycor Construction Co. Inc. in a personal injury negligence action brought by Rollins.

Guy Ivester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1209-PC-491
Post conviction. Grants petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects, which held Ivester was not denied the effective assistance of his trial counsel, that he entered his guilty plea voluntarily, that his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court abuse of discretion are unavailable, and that there was no abuse by the post-conviction court.

Andre Moton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1305-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony robbery and Class B felony attempted carjacking.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.N.C. and L.G.C.; J.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1305-JT-415
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: P.K. (Minor Child) and D.K. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
28A01-1306-JT-260
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christopher L. Aders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A05-1305-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for dismissal under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C).

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT