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. 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!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT