Opinions Dec. 22, 2010

December 22, 2010
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order that emancipated father’s daughter.

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

James A. Nelson v. Michael Collins (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of theft, a Class D felony, following a jury trial.

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

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

Mark Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.


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?