ILNews

Opinions July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday
Indiana Supreme Court

The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski
49S02-0907-CV-347
Civil. Affirms denial of Kroger’s motion for summary judgment on Plonski’s complaint for damages for negligence after she was attacked in the store’s parking lot. The trial court erred in granting her motion to strike Kroger affidavits on criminal activity within the past 2 years and by allowing her to introduce the police reports for the ostensible purpose of supporting her motion. The burden is on Kroger to demonstrate that the assault was not foreseeable, which they did not do.

Curtis F. Sample v. State of Indiana
45S03-1006-CR-338
Criminal. Affirms Sample’s convictions and sentence for attempted murder and criminal confinement. Vacates habitual finding adjudication and remands for new habitual offender phase of trial. Because the trial court provided over Sample’s objection an instruction that minimized the jury’s power of discretion in making a determination on habitual offender status, and provided a “law and facts” instruction that rendered meaningless the jury’s Article I, Section 19 authority, the trial court committed reversible error. Sample is entitled to have the habitual offender adjudication vacated.

Luis E. Duran v. State of Indiana
45S03-0910-CR-430
Criminal. Entry into Duran’s home violated both the state and federal constitutions and the evidence of drugs must be suppressed. The information available to the arresting officers didn’t satisfy even the least-restrictive reasonable suspicion standard.

Subhen Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Commission and Office of the Inspector General
32S01-0910-CV-504
Civil. Holds that a 2005 amendment authorized State Employee Appeals Commission to consider ethical violations among other grounds for termination in conducting this review, but did not otherwise affect the general rule that the Ethics Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the state Ethics Code. Ghosh’s attempt to review his termination by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in this subsequent Ethics Commission proceeding is therefore barred by IDEM’s earlier unappealed decision to terminate him. Upholds the Ethics Commission’s sanction against Ghosh.

Austin Knight v. State of Indiana
02S03-1006-CR-339
Criminal. Revises Knight’s sentence of 70 years following a guilty plea without a plea agreement to 11 counts, including felony burglary and robbery, to a total aggregate term of 40 years. Cannot conclude that Knight’s transgressions necessarily “demonstrate a character of such recalcitrance or depravity” that they justify a 70-year sentence. Remands for re-sentencing.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Luiz Alves v. Old National Bank f/k/a St. Joseph Capital Bank
71A03-0909-CV-416
Civil. Affirms denial of Alves’ Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) motion. Because he filed his motion more than one year after the trial court granted summary judgment for Old National Bank and his earlier appeal of that judgment doesn’t toll the 1-year limit applicable to motions brought pursuant to subsections (1)-(4), his motion is untimely. In addition, the evidence on appeal doesn’t show the bank owed a duty to Alves or that the bank breached a duty by conspiring with his former business partner to remove him from their company.

John M. Knight v. Kelly A. Knight (NFP)
39A01-0909-CV-453
Civil. Affirms denial of John Knight’s petition for modification of child support.

Luiz Alves v. Damon R.  Leichty, James W. Tuesley, and Barnes & Thornburg, LLC (NFP)
71A03-0912-CV-605
Civil. Affirms dismissal with prejudice of Alves’ complaint for legal malpractice.

Karla J. Reaser v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1001-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Derrick D. Hammond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A05-0908-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor false informing.

In Re: the Marriage of J.R. and M.R. (NFP)
30A01-0912-CV-581
Civil. Affirms child support award, reverses division of marital estate, and remands with instructions.

Elizabeth Saldivar-Cruz v. Guardian Industries Corp. (NFP)
93A02-0909-EX-839
Civil. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana.

Gregory A. Harpenau v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1002-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT