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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT