ILNews

Opinions Feb. 24, 2011

February 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
French C. Mason v. State of Indiana
49A02-1005-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and unlawful use of body armor. The trial court had sufficient evidence to show Mason resisted law enforcement and his crime rose to the Class D felony level and to conclude Mason intended to wear body armor in the aid of the felony of resisting law enforcement through the use of a vehicle.

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann/ Michael and Noel Heymann v. Caryn J. Craig, et al.  
49A04-1004-PL-231
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment in favor of the Heymanns that Fischer reimburses the Heymanns’ earnest money deposit to purchase Fischer’s condominium and pay their litigation costs and attorney fees. The trial court clearly erred in concluding the property’s electrical concerns constituted “major defects” as defined in the purchase agreement. The substantive findings in the inspection report do not support an objectively reasonable belief that the defect was major. Remands for determination of damages owed to Fischer and reasonable attorneys fees to be awarded to her. Judge Elaine Brown dissents.

Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton
43A03-1005-DR-325
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Stephanie’s motion to set aside the decree of dissolution that the court had entered dissolving the Cottons’ marriage. The summons served on Stephanie was insufficient as a matter of law for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over her, therefore, the decree is void. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Adoption of M.B.; Je.B. v. Ja.B.
39A01-1007-AD-366
Adoption. Affirms order dismissing stepfather Je.B.’s petition to adopt M.B. without the consent of her natural father, Ja.B. The stepfather didn’t meet his burden of showing that the natural father’s consent is not required for the adoption and the trial court didn’t err when it denied and dismissed his petition to adopt M.B. without the father’s consent.

Bruce Fox v. Dennis Rice, et al.
54A01-1003-PL-97
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing to clarify that Fox’s false imprisonment ended when he was served with an arrest warrant and that Willis lacked final policymaking authority. Affirms original opinion in all respects.

Frank A. Workman, M.D., et al. v. Ann O'Bryan
29A05-1003-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of Dr. Workman’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in a medical malpractice suit brought by O’Bryan. O’Bryan met her burden to show, at least, an issue of material fact as to whether she filed her proposed complaint within a reasonable time.

Phillip Collier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1007-CR-401
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

R.M. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1004-EX-364
Civil. Affirms decision that R.M. was discharged for just cause and not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of W.C., et al.; D.C. v. IDCS (NFP)
57A03-1006-JT-350
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Timothy Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1008-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Bernard Pettis v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-392
Civil. Affirms decision of the Full Worker’s Compensation Board that affirmed the decision of a hearing member awarding Pettis more than $19,000 in temporary total disability benefits.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.G.; H.G. v. IDCS (NFP)
52A02-1007-JT-854
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Curtis Westbrook v. Nye's Wrecker Service (NFP)
18A02-1004-SC-451
Small claims. Affirms judgment denying Westbrook’s claim against Ney’s Wrecker Service arising from the impounding of Westbrook’s vehicle.

Jesus D. Russell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1009-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Richard Oldfield, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A01-1007-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Oldfield serve the suspended portion of his sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT