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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT