Opinions Feb. 21, 2011

February 21, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Burke v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary. Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii), which enhances burglary from a Class C felony to Class B felony if the building or structure burgled is used for religious worship, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.

Sheree Demming v. Cheryl Underwood and Kenneth Kinney
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Underwood and Kinney on Demming’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, as well as her request for the imposition of a constructive trust. The designated evidentiary materials create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Demming exercised sufficient control over Underwood’s activities to support the existence of an agency relationship and whether Underwood breached a common law fiduciary duty owed to Demming. Remands for further proceedings.

Jammy Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Reverses decision to decline to vacate Daniels’ habitual-offender sentencing enhancements. Remands for re-sentencing.

Donald Baker III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors battery and trespass.

Jimmy Vance v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (NFP)
Civil collections. Affirms judgment ordering Vance to pay Caesars Entertainment $75,000, money advanced to him from his established line of credit to gamble at the casino.

Joe E. Smitson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or greater, which were later enhanced to Class D felonies after Smitson pleaded guilty to felony enhancements after he was convicted.

Kenneth Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of remainder of suspended sentence.

Juan Stallworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies battery and intimidation and Class A misdemeanors criminal recklessness and driving while suspended.

Rick Delon v. Timothy Rallings, et al. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of the Rallings on their complaint for breach of contract in the sale of residential real estate.

Eric Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 71-year sentence for four counts of Class A child molesting, three counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.G.; P.D.G. v. IDCS, Vanderburgh County Office (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Paternity of W.H.; S.S. v. D.L.H. (NFP)
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal by S.S. of trial court’s finding that there exists a preset order for college expenses for his child and the mother has the right to file for amendment of that order.

Adoption of T.L.; D.F., K.F. v. M.J. (NFP)
Adoption. Affirms denial of D.F. and K.F.’s cross-petition for adoption of T.L. and grant of the petition for adoption filed by T.L.’s half brother.

Duane Walters v. Home Bank, S.B., et al. (NFP)
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses judgment of foreclosure and remands for further proceedings. Affirms the partial summary judgment upon the note borrowing money from Home Bank.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.J. and H.J.; H.A. v. IDCS (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Scott Malott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for murder and Class B felony confinement.

Randall Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.