ILNews

Opinions Feb. 23, 2011

February 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Debra K. Sands v. Helen HCI, LLC
06A01-1005-CC-231
Civil collections. Reverses denial of Sands’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement between herself, Helen HCI LLC and two other companies, providing for dismissal with prejudice of Helen HCI’s complaint against Sands in Indiana and dismissal with prejudice of Sands’ complaint against Helen HCI and the other companies in a Wisconsin suit. The parties entered into a binding contract which required the subsequent execution of a document memorializing their agreement and there is no uncertainty as to any substantial term of the settlement contract.

Sutton Funding, LLC v. Janusz Jaworski, First Midwest, et al./First Midwest Bank v. Sutton Funding
49A02-1006-MF-709
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment for First Midwest Bank and Janusz Jaworski in its complaint to foreclose on the 2004 mortgage and its assertion that it was in first lien position on the property. Sutton Funding also filed a complaint to foreclose against Jaworski and First Midwest on the 2007 mortgage, which it had financed on the same property, and note. Indiana Code Section 32-29-6-13 requires Sutton Funding be provided with a release of the mortgage at issue and that summary judgment be granted in its favor.  

Steven E. Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., et al.
64A03-1004-PL-232
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of a preliminary injunction against Coates and in favor of Heat Wagons and Manufacturers Products (MPI). The trial court did not err in determining that MPI faced a risk of irreparable harm and lacked adequate remedy at law as a result of any breach by Coates of the covenant not to compete. It also did not err in determining that MPI has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its case. Reverses part of order enjoining any use by Coates of the Web address www.heatersandparts.com and the red “H&P” logo because restrictions are overly broad. Judge James Kirsch dissents.

Ronald A. Steenbeke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1006-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor failure to stop after damage to property other than a vehicle.

Roy Kresel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1010-CR-1190
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony aggravated battery.

Dorris Merriweather, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1008-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to one count of Class A felony attempted murder and two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Michael S. Polites v. State of Indiana (NFP)
68A01-1004-CR-150
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of Polites’ motion to suppress.

State of Indiana v. Jason Patton (NFP)
66A03-1008-CR-476
Criminal. Reverses grant of Patton’s motion for discharge and remands for further proceedings.

Oscar Delatorre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Robert Beeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1007-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Daniel W. Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1007-CR-540
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and Class D felony invasion of privacy.

M.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-JV-843
Juvenile. Affirms determination that M.C. committed what would be Class B felony robbery if committed by an adult.

Billy James Huff, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A05-1010-CR-659
Criminal. Revises Huff’s sentence following guilty plea to Class D felonies possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. Remands for his two-year sentences to be served consecutively.

William Smith v. Arbor Woods Apartments (NFP)
25A03-1005-CT-262
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Arbor Woods Apartments in Smith’s suit after he fell on ice in front of his apartment. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Brown dissents.

James C. Gaskill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
86A03-1008-CR-563
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony aggravated battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT