Opinions Jan. 31, 2011

January 31, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cynthia L. Foley v. Robert L. Schwartz and Danny L. Collins
Civil tort. Reverses grant of Schwartz’s motion to dismiss Foley’s complaint following an ATV accident on Collins’ property. The trial court erred when it granted Schwartz’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Remands for further proceedings.

JK Harris & Co. v. Ronald Sandlin
Civil tort. Affirms denial of JK Harris’ motions to set aside default judgment and class certification. JK Harris received adequate notice of the proceedings, and waived its right to compel arbitration. Remands for a new evidentiary hearing to define the plaintiff class with more specificity.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.B.; W.B. v. IDCS and Lake County CASA
Juvenile. Reveres involuntary termination of father W.B.’s parental rights to his child D.B. Given the circumstances before the court, this case hasn’t reached the “last resort” stage to terminate the relationship. Remands for further proceedings under the juvenile court’s previous child in need of services orders.

Merle R. Webb v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor, robbery as a Class B felony, six counts of fraud as Class D felonies, and two counts of attempted fraud as Class D felonies. As Webb pled guilty to all charges without the benefit of a plea agreement, the trial court should have identified his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. However, the trial court would not have imposed a lesser sentence even if it had explicitly identified his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Webb has not established that his sentence is inappropriate.

R.M. v. Second Injury Fund
Civil. Reverses order of the Full Worker’s Compensation Board that determined R.M. is entitled to receive benefits from the Second Injury Fund beginning with the 501st week after the date of his workplace injury. R.M. should be entitled to receive benefits from the fund beginning with the week following the effective exhaustion of his worker’s compensation benefits.

John M. Norris v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter and there is sufficient evidence to prove that Norris knowingly or intentionally killed his long-term live-in girlfriend.

Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct error following the summary denial of Zagorac’s petition to expunge his arrest record. He hasn’t show the summary denial was an abuse of the trial court’s “almost unfettered discretion” to deny his petition nor can he succeed with his argument that the expungement statute violates the Indiana Constitution as he waived that argument for appeal.

Charleen (Turi) King v. Kenneth Robert Turi (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of King’s motion to correct error following the court’s ruling on her information for indirect contempt. Remands for a hearing on appellate attorney fee damages.

Daniel J. Hooper v. Donna J. Smith (NFP)
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting Smith’s “motion for acceptance of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”

Roy A. Selby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of child molesting, one count as a Class A felony and one count as a Class C felony, and 50-year aggregate sentence.

Gary G. Lane v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

G.W. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Affirms denial of claim for full unemployment benefits.

Katherine Weber v. Carrie Schlichtenmyer (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Schlichtenmyer as personal representative of the estate of Gerald Schlichtenmyer on Weber’s claim asserting the estate owed her money for personal services rendered to Gerald before his death.

Marty B. Beard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance but reverses the Class D felony conviction of possession of precursors. Affirms sentence enhancement imposed due to habitual substance offender status. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Ca.K and Co.K.; J.S. v. I.D.C.S. ad Monroe County CASA (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Dorian L. Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies burglary and robbery.

Virgil Austin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after license forfeited for life, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

R.K. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana if committed by an adult.

Jackie Joiner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

A.C., et al., Alleged to be CHINS; D.B. v. IDCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of A.C. as a child in need of services. Remands for the court to remove reference to E.C. from the order that D.B. establish paternity.

Tiffany Shelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Scott A. Hesser v. Wendy S. Hesser (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property.

Conan L. Helsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order denying Helsley’s motion for discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) and remands for trial.

James Daher, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit escape with a deadly weapon.

Gregory Barkdull v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 9-year sentence for Class D felony operation a vehicle while intoxicated, Class C infraction speeding, and determination he is an habitual substance offender.

T.B. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Affirms Review Board’s affirmation of an administrative law judge’s decision finding T.B. was terminated for good cause.

Adoption of D.M.C., et al.; D.L.C. v. Chr.P. and Cha.P. (NFP)
Adoption. Affirms adoption by stepfather Chr.P.

D.A. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be two counts of Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Company v. Review Board, K.S. (NFP)
Civil. Affirms decision to grant unemployment benefits to K.S.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of S.S.; B.S. & T.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

David Farmer, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Charles D. Lamphier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to operating a motor vehicle after driving privileges had been forfeited for life as a Class C felony.

Monica M. Emmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in allowing a brief continuance or in admitting audio recordings. Reverses trial court award of credit time and remands with instructions to recalculate the amount of credit time.

Charles Vernon Nute, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony child solicitation and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

Kaouthar Chamem v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied 12 for the week ending Jan. 28.


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?