ILNews

Opinions Jan. 15, 2013

January 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Timothy W. Plank, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Debra L. Plank, Deceased v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., and State of Indiana
49S04-1203-CT-135
Civil tort. Affirms trial court denial of Timothy Plank’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Act. Plank forfeited his opportunity to conduct such a hearing.

Indiana Court of Appeals
George Dean King v. Kay S. King, et al.
49A02-1202-MF-73
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court’s approval of the receiver’s Verified Final Accounting relating to the receivership of eight business entities founded by George W. King and the distribution of the receivership assets among his three children. The COA rejected George Dean King’s assertion that the conveyance of Crown Associates Inc. included certain inter-company accounts receivable created by the court-appointed receiver. The COA ruled the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the siblings’ settlement agreement which transferred ownership of Crown to George Dean King did not specifically mention the accounts receivable.  

Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
20A03-1206-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms 10-year sentence for nonsupport of dependent children after resentencing ordered by the Indiana Supreme Court, holding that Amir Sanjari’s sentence was not inappropriate given Sanjari’s character and that Sanjari presented no evidence that the sentence was vindictive.

Steven Engelking v. Amy Engelking
18A02-1206-DR-495
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court judgment requiring Steven Engelking to pay child support for two children born through artificial insemination from a third-party sperm donor. The court rejected Steven Engelking’s argument that he did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the artificial inseminations and ruled that both parents have an obligation to support the children.

Secrena D. Erwin, individually and as Mother of Sheyenne R. Jenkins, deceased v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., Ian's Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., and R&G Management Co., Inc., et al.
32A01-1202-CT-80
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of HSBC et. al. in the wrongful death action filed after the drowning of 5-year-old Sheyenne Erwin. The appeals court held that the grant of summary judgment based on lack of duty was properly granted.

J.R. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1204-JV-175
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for burglary, which would be a Class B felony if committed by an adult; theft, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult; auto theft, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult; and resisting law enforcement, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

John Pichon, Jr. v. American Heritage Banco, Inc., et al.
76A03-1201-PL-4
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for new trial after a judgment of $1,189,105 plus interest had been entered against John Pichon, holding the trial court erred in excluding from evidence an exhibit purporting to show Pichon repaid a $650,000 promissory note.

Designplan, Inc. and Jill D. Willey v. John R. Price and The National Bank of Indianapolis Corporation (NFP)
29A05-1203-PL-120
Civil Plenary. There was no breach of duty, and the trial court did not err by granting NBI’s motion for summary judgment.

Bin Mu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-310
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Norma E. Singo, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, and Fred Shimfessel, Richard Cart, d/b/a Cart's Creative Designs and Encore Credit Corp. (NFP)
39A01-1202-MF-48
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank, et al.

Kelly Lee Muncy, Kendra Marie Vondersaar, Karen Kay Muncy and Kim Sue Muncy v. Town of Avon, Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1203-OV-134
Local ordinance violation/zoning. Affirms trial court ruling that use of property for open storage violates an Avon zoning ordinance.

Pamela J. Podemski v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee (NFP)
20A03-1207-MF-325
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court denial of Pamela Podemski’s motion to set aside default judgment and foreclosure decree.

State of Indiana v. Jason Burkett (NFP)
09A02-1205-PC-356
Post conviction. Reverses and remands post-conviction relief court’s grant of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Tr.C., Te.C., and K.C. (Minor Children); N.C. aka N.J. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
42A04-1205-JT-273
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.


 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT