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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT