Opinions Feb. 28, 2014

February 28, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mary L. Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp.
Civil tort. Affirms order setting aside its default judgment against Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp. Anderson failed to serve the American Legion in a manner authorized by the Indiana Trial Rules.

Kenneth Seales v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove Seales from the sex offender registry and his motion to correct error. The additional registration requirements imposed on him after a 2006 change in the law do not amount to an impermissible ex post facto law.

Eddie Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Terry Lee Duckworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony sexual battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Q.L. and M.L., M.F., Jr., and N.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Debra Sue Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Joy Elaine Gwinn v. Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates, Inc (NFP)
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates on Gwinn’s claim for negligence.

Mario Sims, Sr., and Tiffiny Sims, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWABS, Inc., et al. (NFP)
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the bank on its complaint to foreclose on its mortgage.

Scott Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

D.K. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms finding that D.K. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

Alonzo Golston Williams III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

David Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Joshua Basey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony criminal confinement in bodily injury.

James A. Lynn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Deion Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Stewart Gase v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Leon Rice, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Roger Anderson (NFP)
Agency action. Affirms determination that Anderson is eligible for unemployment benefits.

Johnny Leon Burchett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for continuance and request to withdraw guilty plea.  

Christopher M. Galvan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R.: N.R. v. K.G. and C.G. (NFP)
Adoption. Dismisses appeal of order granting petition of C.G. and K.G. to adopt O.R. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?