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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT