ILNews

Opinions Feb. 14, 2012

February 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Schilli Transportation Services, Inc.
No. 11-2307
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. – Schilli Transporation’s insurer – holding that the insurance policy was ambiguous as to the nature of the defendants’ liability for the deductible. Reverses and remands for further proceedings.

Tuesday’s opinions

The 7th Circuit Court of appeals had posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In Re: The Marriage of K.Z. and M.H.
43A05-1107-DR-436
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order modifying dissolution decree to reflect that a child of the marriage between K.Z. and M.H. had been born after their divorce. Citing mother’s statement in the original dissolution decree, holds that no question of paternity exists, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the dissolution decree at the father’s request.

State of Indiana v. Renee Lynch
49A02-1105-CR-529
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of Lynch’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop, holding that because she did not turn left from a designated turn-only lane, a police officer had probable cause to pull her over for that infraction, and therefore evidence of her intoxication during that traffic stop is admissible.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.M., G.M., and R.M.; A.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Dearborn County Office
15A01-1104-JT-204
Juvenile. On petition for rehearing, affirms original opinion that the Department of Child Services must make a prima facie showing about current conditions before the parents are obliged to come forward with evidence. Holds that the Legislature chose to require proof of present conditions before a child can be removed from a home and that the appellate court is not at liberty to alter statutory language.

Austin White v. Jessamyn Rhymer (NFP)
25A05-1109-SC-507
Small claims. Affirms trial court’s denial of White’s motion to set aside judgment when it dismissed his counterclaim. Holds that White has established the trial court committed a prima facie error when it awarded attorney fees to Rhymer and therefore reverses on that ground.

Michael T. Hackworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1106-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and for being a habitual offender.

Robert M. Nolan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1007-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony child molesting, two counts of Class D felony child seduction and Class B felony rape.

R.T. Moore Co., Inc., FAHS Construction Group, Hearth at Tudor Gardens, LLC and Hearth at Juday Creek, LLC vs. Slant/Fin Corporation (NFP)
49A04-1109-CC-463
Civil collections. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment of Slant/Fin Corporation, holding that Slant/Fin was a “materialman” in its agreement with DuraFlo, that the materialman-to-materialman relationship does not permit Slant/Fin to hold a mechanic’s lien or seek protections of the Personal Liability Notice Statute.

Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1103-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony child molesting and one conviction for Class C felony child molesting.

Keith R. Erwin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass.

Roy A. Dinwiddie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1106-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.T. and L.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1107-JT-665
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Brandi Lynn Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to revoke probation and order to sever remainder of sentence.

William Lamar Bass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1109-CR-835
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class C felony criminal recklessness.

William K. Aynes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1106-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation.

Aileen (Scott) Kruse v. James D. Scott (NFP)
29A04-1106-DR-303
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order resolving father’s child support arrearage and other child support issues.

Richard William, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Mary Lee Enlow, Deceased, and Vickie Lee Williams v. Kevin Heavner, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Norman Heavner, Deceased (NFP)
87A05-1104-PL-235
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of deceased’s personal representative.

Kathleen T. Mercier v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and HSS Systems, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-719
Civil. Affirms decision by the Department of Workforce Development Review Board that Mercier was discharged for just cause and therefore was not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.E. & H.E. (Minor Children) and D.E. (Father) & D.E. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
72A01-1107-JT-331
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Delaney Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1106-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Rick Carter v. Kristina Anderson (NFP)
41A01-1107-PO-301
Protective order. Reverses protective order in favor of Anderson, holding that the trial court did not listen to Carter’s witnesses or allow him to enter evidence in his defense and misinterpreted the grounds for issuing a protective order.

John Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A05-1109-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Arthur v. Michael F. Ward, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Judith A. Arthur and Delbert N. Arthur, III, Individually (NFP)
22A01-1107-PL-326
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, holding James Arthur did not demonstrate a material issue of fact as to whether his mother signed estate documents. Remanded to the trial court for further litigation on the mother’s testamentary capacity, holding James Arthur had provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on that claim.  

The Indiana Supreme  Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT