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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT