Opinions Feb. 11, 2013

February 11, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Gray v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of Class D felony possession of cocaine, holding that the court erred in failing to allow a defendant to play a tape of an officer’s deposition that contained inconsistent statements, but that the error was harmless because other evidence at trial strongly pointed to Gray’s guilt.

Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, holding that Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated because the court allowed a state trooper to testify about a certification of a breath-test machine rather than the signer of the certification.

AT&T v. Atlas Excavating, Inc. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgment and remands the matter to the lower court with instructions to vacate its judgment in favor of Atlas, enter a summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and conduct proceedings to determine damages.

Tammy Syers v. JKL Construction & Home Maintenance (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of JKL Construction & Home Maintenance. Concludes JKL’s mechanic’s lien was timely filed and that the lien is not void because of an overstatement in amount.

Thomas Oakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence following a guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony.

Manuel Lloyd Jamersen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Count I child molesting, a Class A felony; and Count II attempted child molesting, a Class A felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jamersen.

Ernestine Waldon, Christine Hampshire, and Vergie Small v. Donna Wilkins, MD, Joshua Williams, and Rodney Barber, and Carl Barber, Jr. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reinstate Waldon’s replevin claim. Concludes the trial court properly dismissed Waldon’s claims against appellees stemming from the execution of the trial court’s demolition order under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and immunity arising from the Indiana Tort Claims Act. However, finds the trial court erred when it dismissed Waldon’s replevin claim contained in the amended complaint.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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?