ILNews

Opinions July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Indiana Department of Transportation
12-3187
Civil/agency action. Affirms the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Corps of Engineers, holding that the Corps evaluated all of the wetland-protection factors required in its approval of a Clean Water Act permit to construct a section of Interstate 69 about 25 miles south of Bloomington.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Weinreb v. Fannie Mae
49A04-1211-PL-587
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to Fannie Mae for $1.81 million. Weinreb, a real estate investor who was held liable for the amount, appealed the summary judgment on the grounds that the implementation of the loan documents was ambiguous; the prepayment premium is unenforceable; and the guaranty along with the loan documents are unenforceable because of unconscionability. The COA finds no ambiguity in either the language or implementation of the documents. It also concludes the prepayment premium is enforceable as a matter of law because it fairly compensates Fannie Mae for lost interest. Finally, the court rules Weinreb was not in a position of weakness or unequal bargaining power when negotiating the loan so the guaranty and the loan documents are not unconscionable.   

Marshall Banter v. Joshua Sheets
34A05-1212-CT-629
Civil tort. Reverses and remands for a new trial in a claim arising from an automobile crash. The panel held that a jury that assigned 70 percent fault to Marshall Banter, a motorist rear-ended in an auto accident, was given incorrect instructions and misapplied the Indiana Comparative Fault Act. The panel further held that Joshua Sheets conceded liability and therefore the jury at a new trial shall only determine Banter’s damages.

The Cain Family Farm, L.P., and The Cain Family Farm, LLC, v. Schrader Real Estate & Auction Company, Inc., Charles O. Drerup, Antlers Ridge, LLC, and Candace J. Somerlott

57A03-1209-PL-394
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling validating the purchase agreements on property sold at auction, agreeing with trial court rulings that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Candace Somerlot’s apparent authority to bind the LLC when she executed purchase agreements, and that the trial court correctly interpreted the Indiana Business Flexibility Act, I.C. 23-18-3-1.1(b).

William Chavers v. State of Indiana

49A04-1211-CR-580
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Finds that Chavers failed to show he made an honest and reasonable mistake of fact that would have negated his culpability for violating a no-contact order. Concludes a “reasonable person” would have attempted to verify that both protective orders issued from Marion Superior Court 21 and Court 16 had been vacated before going to the victim’s residence. However, in his dissent, Judge John Baker argues the confusion over the two separate orders could have caused “an average person” to easily make a mistake regarding the status of the protective orders.

Jeramie Murdock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1210-CR-880
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence and convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Jeffrey Nemcek v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1210-CR-549
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B misdemeanor possession of a switchblade knife.

Scott Banfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A04-1210-IF-536
Infraction. Affirms bench trial verdict against Scott Banfield and fine of $35.50 plus court costs for a speeding ticket.

Oscar Guillen, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1204-CR-157
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony intimidation and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Patrick Wiese v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-595
Criminal/rehearing. Reaffirms trial court denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a home search.

Eric M. Kyner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-PC-124
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from his designation as a sexually violent predator and placement on parole, which was revoked after a violation.

Christopher McCaster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A04-1212-CR-644
Criminal. Affirms habitual-offender sentence enhancement to a conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to deal in cocaine or a narcotic drug.

Romell Colvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1212-CR-576
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of dealing in marijuana.

Nicholas Joseph Bray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1210-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Barbara Laskowski v. Amer Kazi, M.D. (NFP)
20A03-1205-PL-235
Civil plenary/medical malpractice. A majority of Judge Rudolph Pyle III and Chief Judge Margret Robb affirms summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Judge Melissa May dissents.

Jim A. Edsall v. Benson, Pantello, Morris, James & Logan (NFP)
02A05-1210-SC-508
Small claims. Affirms judgment against Jim Edsall for $981.31 in unpaid legal fees.

Kenneth Horton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-1036
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation on the suspended portion of a sentence for Class B felony rape.

Delford W. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1209-CR-401
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony sexual battery and remands to the trial court to enter a conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery and resentence Jones accordingly.

Susan Berg v. Wanda Peters Rice a/k/a Wanda Coleman (NFP)
40A04-1210-SC-530
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Wanda Peters Rice a/k/a Wanda Coleman in a land contract dispute.

Melvin Lee Hayes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Remands to the trial court to recalculate credit for time served on convictions of Class D felony counts of possession of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine and theft.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.


 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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