ILNews

Opinions Jan. 20, 2012

January 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Dept. of Insurance, Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Robin Everhart, Personal Rep. of the Estate of James K. Everhart, Jr.
84S01-1105-CV-282
Civil. Affirms award of statutory maximum of $1 million in excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to Robin Everhart. Does not see any grounds on which to reduce the trial court’s award of $1 million in excess damages, so deciding whether to extend or halt Cahoon’s advance would seem unnecessary at best. The fund was not entitled to a set-off.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jose Castillo-Aguilar v. State of Indiana
20A04-1003-CR-195
Criminal. Reverses denial of Castillo-Aguilar’s motion to suppress his answers on the information sheet he completed at the police station. He was subjected to “interrogation” when he was asked to fill out the information sheet, so he should have been given a Miranda warning.   

Apex 1 Processing, Inc. v. Akeala Edwards, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated
49A05-1103-PL-85
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Apex 1’s motion to compel arbitration of Edwards’ claim. As the designation of the arbitrator was integral to the arbitration provision, the trial court correctly determined that the agreement was impossible to perform and thus void.

K.F. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-JV-290
Juvenile. Affirms finding that K.F. committed acts that would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult based on sufficient evidence. Reverses finding that she committed what would be carrying a handgun without a license if committed by an adult because of insufficient evidence. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence K.F.’s statement made to her mother, but it did err by allowing a police officer to testify as to the mother’s hearsay statements. The admission of that testimony was harmless error. Remands for the juvenile court to correct the dispositional order and CCS entry to accurately reflect the true findings entered by the court.

Louis L. Blacknell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1106-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to felony murder.

Opie W. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1107-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dustin Tumbleson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1107-CR-613
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor battery and remands with instructions.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of R.C. & S.C.; R.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A05-1104-JT-232
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Larry Hellyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1107-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Nicholas A. Meade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1106-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following determination Meade violated his probation.

Mikeia Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Leonard T. Marshall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape, criminal confinement, intimidation, strangulation, residential entry, resisting law enforcement and false informing.

Patricia Mowery and Harold R. Mowery, Jr. v. Arron L. Hofmeister, Individually and as Employee/Agent of Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, and Marathon Petroleum Co., LP (NFP)
49A05-1103-CT-142
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Hofmeister in the Mowerys’ action for damages from a collision.

In Re: The Marriage of Cindy B. Neal and George Neal, Jr.; Cindy B. Neal v. George Neal, Jr. (NFP)
70A01-1104-DR-183
Domestic relation. Affirms award of certain personal property to George Neal, the denial of cleanup costs and attorney fees, and the award of certain bank accounts to Cindy Neal.

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