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

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT