ILNews

Opinions Dec. 22, 2010

December 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline:
Indiana Tax Court
Virginia Garwood, et al. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
82T10-0906-TA-29
Tax. Denies the Department of Revenue’s motion to dismiss. The Garwoods’ action is an original tax appeal, so the Tax Court denies all of the department’s 12(B) claims for a motion to dismiss.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Dept. of Insurance, et al. v. Robin Everhart
84A01-0912-CV-614
Civil. Judge Robb dissents to the order denying petition for rehearing. Believes Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 323 should not be applied, as was done in the original opinion.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Trinity Homes LLC and Beazer Homes Investments LLC v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Cincinnati Insurance Company
09-3613
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Civil. Reverses District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurers on the homebuilders’ suit alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that all of the insurers had a duty to provide coverage. The precedential landscape has changed regarding the claim against Ohio Casualty. Remands for reconsideration in light of Sheehan. The District Court’s interpretation of the contract between Cincinnati Insurance and Beazer was erroneous. Declines to reach the question of whether any exclusions or limitations in Cincinnati’s policy apply to Beazer’s claim, leaving that for further proceedings on remand.


Indiana Supreme Court
Andres Sanchez v. State of Indiana
20S04-1012-CR-692
Criminal. Revises Sanchez’s consecutive enhanced sentences of 80 years for three counts of Class A felony child molesting to be served concurrently. Generally, multiple victims justify the imposition of enhanced and consecutive sentences. But although the aggravating circumstances are sufficient to warrant imposing enhanced sentences, the record supports imposing consecutive sentences. Revises sentence to 30 years on two of the counts and to the enhanced term of 40 years on the remaining count and orders they be served concurrently. Justice Rucker dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Oscar I. Belmares-Bautista v. State of Indiana
57A04-1003-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of a counterfeit government-issued identification, a Class A misdemeanor; and operating a vehicle without ever having received a valid license, a Class C misdemeanor. The only issue is whether Belmares-Bautista knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The counterfeit identification was what appeared to be a driver’s license from the state of Aguascalientes, Mexico, which an officer identified as a forgery.

Robert Neises Construction Corp. v. Grand Innovations Inc., et al.
45A03-1004-PL-238
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant Kentland Bank in this foreclosure action. Neises presented the following issues: whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Kentland’s expenditures to protect the subject real estate from damage pending the foreclosure should take priority over Neises’ and others’ mechanic’s liens; and whether the trial court erred when it did not assign Neises’ mechanic’s lien a higher priority than Kentland’s mortgage lien in the distribution of the proceeds from the sheriff’s sale.

Tracey L. Beswick and Ruthie Beswick v. Edward E. Bell, M.D., and Floyd Memorial Hospital & Health Services
22A01-1005-CT-260
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Floyd Memorial Hospital and Health Services in the medical malpractice action that Tracey L. Beswick and his wife Ruthie Beswick brought against Edward E. Bell, M.D. and Floyd Memorial. Beswicks raised the issue of whether the trial court erred by striking the affidavit of Michael Roback, M.D., submitted by the Beswicks in opposition to Floyd Memorial’s motion for summary judgment.

Glendal Rhoton v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and burglary as a Class C felony, and the sentences imposed following a jury trial. Rhoton presented three issues for review: whether trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury on burglary; whether the evidence was sufficient to support Rhoton’s conviction of murder; whether Rhoton’s sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Mark R. Eiler v. State of Indiana
73A04-1005-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses and remands Eiler’s sentence for dealing cocaine as a Class A felony. Eiler raised the issues of whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Eiler, and whether Eiler’s sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Francisco Contreras v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Ryan T. Renfroe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1002-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms Renfroe’s aggregate executed sentence of 124 years after he pled guilty to two counts of murder and one count of Class C felony escape.

Clarence E. Lampkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1005-CR-373
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony.

Allen Marshall v. Kris Marshall (NFP)
85A03-1005-DR-289
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order that emancipated father’s daughter.

Thomas M. Blair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1005-CR-295
Criminal. Affirms conviction, following a jury trial, of burglary as a Class B felony.

James A. Nelson v. Michael Collins (NFP)
26A01-1007-PL-329
Civil. Remands with instructions for the trial court to dismiss Nelson’s complaint without prejudice.

In the Matter of T.O., et al.; J.O. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A04-1006-JC-407
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s order determining that T.O., S.O., B.O., R.O., Z.O., E.O., and G.O. were children in need of services.

Larrell Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1003-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of G.B., et al.; G.B. & B.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
42A05-1005-JT-318
Juvenile. Reverses and remands with instructions trial court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights over her minor children G.B., K.B., and E.B.

Jerry Bunton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-600
Criminal. Affirms conviction of theft, a Class D felony, following a jury trial.

Eric Guess v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-PC-281
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeffrey D. Boggs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1004-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms conviction of escape as a Class C felony, and eight-year executed sentence.

Mark Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0607-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms 93-year aggregate sentence imposed following convictions of rape, a Class B felony; criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony; burglary, a Class B felony; and confinement, a Class D felony, as well as the finding that he is a habitual offender.

D.R. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1005-EX-522
Civil. Affirms a decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that denied D.R.’s unemployment benefits.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT