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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT