ILNews

Opinions Feb. 15, 2013

February 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
South Shore Baseball, LLC d/b/a Gary South Shore Railcats, and Northwest Sports Venture, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus
45A03-1205-CT-222
Civil tort. Reverses denial of summary judgment for South Shore Baseball on DeJesus’ lawsuit filed after she was hit by a foul ball at a game. As a matter of law, the appellants can’t be held liable for her injuries. Remands with instructions for the court to issue summary judgment in favor of South Shore Baseball.

Amanda Vaughn v. State of Indiana

49A02-1207-CR-544
Criminal. Reverses order Vaughn perform 40 hours of community service in lieu of paying court costs and a fine after pleading guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The trial court lacked statutory authority to impose a community service requirement in lieu of costs and fees. Remands for the court to address the imposition of costs and fees in this case. Judge Baker dissents.  

Amy Jean Kristoff v. Centier Bank
45A03-1204-TR-186
Trust. Affirms grant of summary judgment for the bank, the trustee of the Amy Jean Kristoff Exempt Trust, in Kristoff’s action to modify the terms of the trust established by her late mother. Rejects the premise of Kristoff’s argument that the purpose of the trust was to provide for Sally Kristoff’s non-existent grandchildren.

VFW Post 2953, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council (NFP)
82A01-1206-PL-255
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the fraternal organizations’ petition for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that a city ordinance prohibiting smoking violates the Indiana Constitution.

Shawn J. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)

32A01-1207-CR-329
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class D felony theft and remands for further proceedings.

Misty DeMoss v. Toby Dolan (NFP)

55A04-1209-SC-458
Small claim. Affirms finding that DeMoss acted in direct contempt of court.

Tasha Parsons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1208-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms murder sentence.

Larry J. Briski v. Peoples Bank (NFP)

45A03-1208-PL-343
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the bank on the bank’s action to enforce a guaranty for $50,000 against Briski.

Courtney A. Wuethrich v. State of Indiana (NFP)

66A03-1206-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors illegal consumption of alcohol and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration equivalent to at least 0.08 but less than 0.15.

Dennis White v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-1207-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms order of maximum and consecutive sentences following a guilty plea to one count each of Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony criminal confinement and Class D felony torturing or mutilating a vertebrate animal.

In Re: The Paternity of K.D.; M.G. v. S.D. (NFP)

32A01-1209-JP-432
Juvenile. Affirms modification of custody in favor of father, but reverses order mother must pay $750 toward father’s attorney fees.

Clarence E. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A04-1206-CR-315
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Pie Kitchen, LLC d/b/a Homemade Ice Cream and Pie Kitchen v. Merchant, LLC (NFP)
10A01-1207-CC-322
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the merchant, awarding it more than $48,000 in damages and interest in a lease dispute.

Brian Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1206-CR-301
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

Jesse L. Rose v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A05-1205-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms four convictions of Class A felony child molesting and 200-year sentence.

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Harbor Bay, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council (NFP)

82A01-1205-CT-242
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the tavern owners request for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that an Evansville ordinance prohibiting smoking in certain locations violates the Indiana Constitution.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court 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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT