ILNews

Opinions Jan. 11, 2012

January 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel E. Serban v. State of Indiana
02A03-1106-CR-285
Criminal. Declines to revise Serban’s 11-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony corrupt business influence and Class D felony theft. Serban failed to demonstrate his sentence is inappropriate, and his stealing from his clients injured not only them, but also the legal profession.

Nicholas Williams v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-CR-266
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy’s motion to quash Williams’ subpoena for a certified copy of “any and all” of Williams’ prescription records. The confidentiality provisions of the applicable statute were enacted to protect Williams’ physician-patient privilege and pharmacist-patient privilege and he waived those privileges by requesting his prescription records in the exercise of his constitutional right to present a complete defense to the charged crimes. Williams’ request is sufficiently particular, the requested information is material to his defense, not all the information requested would be available from his doctors and the board has failed to show a paramount interest in not disclosing the information.

Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana
33A04-1104-PL-199
Civil plenary. Affirms two orders entered granting summary judgment to New Castle in its suit against Dave’s Excavating on breach of a construction contract and against Liberty Mutual under a performance bond. Dave’s refusal to resume work on the project constituted a breach of construction contract, and Liberty Mutual did not show that it asserted its rights to elect how to mitigate damages “promptly.”

Anthony J. Rehl, Sr. and Bessie A. Rehl v. Robert V. Billetz and Joy A. Billetz
52A05-1105-PL-246
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of the Billetzes regarding an access easement. The trial court did not err in making its findings of facts related to the relative use or increased use of the easement area and interference with the use of the Rehl property.

Clark County Drainage Board and Clark County Board of Commissioners v. Robert Isgrigg
10A05-1102-PL-68
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment for Isgrigg. Isgrigg, in his official capacity as county surveyor, had standing to seek declaratory relief from the Clark County Drainage Board’s actions. The drainage board’s subdivision project didn’t establish a regulated drain under Indiana Code, and therefore, the board wasn’t required to utilize the county surveyor. The board’s removal of an obstruction from a natural watercourse without the county surveyor’s participation did violate Indiana Code.

Charles Lawrence, Sr. v. State of Indiana
02A03-1105-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The state presented sufficient substantive evidence to establish that Lawrence was in his sister’s apartment around the time of the shooting and had the opportunity to commit murder.

Shandaleigha M. Tharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1105-CR-292
Criminal. Vacates Tharp’s aggregate 27-year sentence following a guilty plea for various offenses, including forgery, burglary, and theft and imposes an aggregate sentence of 19.5 years, with 14.5 executed and five years suspended.

Diyon Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Arnold W. Cook v. Consolidated Roofing, Inc. (NFP)
34A02-1104-CC-339
Civil collection. Affirms judgment substantially in favor of Consolidated Roofing on Cook’s complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.

Vincent Barrett and Sarah Barrett v. City of Logansport, Indiana; Michael Nicoll, in his capacity as Sexton of Mount Hope Cemetery; and James McDonald (NFP)
09A02-1103-PL-252
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Logansport, Nicoll and McDonald on the Barretts’ claims for negligence, breach of contract, fraud and injunctive relief.

R.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1107-JT-309
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT