ILNews

Opinions Feb. 10, 2011

February 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association v. J.M. Corporation and Ralph Reed
48S00-1003-PL-158
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of J.M. Corporation’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Indiana Code Section 13-20-2-11, which would require further review and approval of zoning, violated the Indiana Constitution and remands for further proceedings. Declines to decide the constitutional issue, but finds because J.M. Corporation’s facilities accepted wasted before April 1, 2008, Indiana Code Section 13-20-2-11 doesn’t apply.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christine and Ivan Kolozsvari v. John Doe, M.D., Jane Doe, R.N., Kelley Branchfield, R.Ph., and Hook SuperX, LLC
32A04-1008-CT-525
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment against the Kolozsvaris and in favor of Kelley Branchfield and Hook Super X (CVS) in the Kolozsvaris’ suit alleging negligence and loss of consortium after Christine took a prescribed drug that caused kidney failure and the pharmacist disregarded warnings about drug interactions. In light of the evidence, CVS and Branchfield had a duty of care to Christine to either warn her of the side effects of the drug or to withhold the medication in accordance with Indiana Code Section 25-26-13-16 and Pharmacy Board rule 1-33-2. Remands for further proceedings.

Beneficial Indiana, Inc. v. Joy Properties, LLC
02A05-1005-PL-260
Civil plenary. Reverses order to the Allen County treasurer and auditor that it disburse to Joy Properties the surplus funds from a tax sale of real estate in Fort Wayne that Beneficial had an interest in. Beneficial has a more substantial interest in the real estate and that equity requires disbursement of the tax surplus funds to Beneficial.

Nexus Group Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Service and Alan Landing
46A03-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Heritage Appraisal Service and Landing in Nexus’ complaint for defamation per se, defamation per quod, and punitive damages. It is undisputed that Heritage’s statements related to a matter of public interest and that Nexus failed to designate any evidence showing that Heritage acted in bad faith or without a reasonable basis in law and fact when it made its statements in the letter. Remands for a hearing on appellate attorney fees.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Jerry Huston, et al. (NFP)
77A01-1009-MI-511
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Justise’s pro se complaint against Jerry Huston and Karen Richards alleging they denied him access to legal research materials while he was in the Wabash Valley Correctional facility.

Ernest Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony attempted theft and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motorized vehicle.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.B. & M.B.; K.A. & B.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
33A01-1007-JT-379
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parent-child relationship.

Willie G. Pargo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-573
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class C felony possession with a firearm, and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Charles Durham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-PC-363
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Stephan D. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-631
Criminal. Affirms sentence for voluntary manslaughter as a Class A felony.

Daniel A. Demaree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1005-CR-295
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for five counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Rextori Pizza, et al. v. Dutch Mill Plaza, LLC (NFP)
90A02-1008-CC-920
Civil collections. Affirms order entering final judgment in favor of Dutch Mill Plaza on its complaint against Rextori for breach of contract and on Rextori’s counterclaims for wrongful eviction and conversion. Remands for a hearing on appellate attorney fees.

Douglas Alan Baker, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1006-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of maintaining a common nuisance as a Class D felony.

James McMahon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

Michael A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1001-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

L.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-JV-766
Juvenile. Reverses order modifying probation and suspended commitment and remands for further proceedings.

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT