ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Annette Pittman v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. I.C. 12-23-15-2 did not require the arresting officer, or other law enforcement personnel elsewhere, to perform an evaluation so thorough as to eliminate all other possible causes for each of the symptoms of alcoholic intoxication that Pittman exhibited.

Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
49A02-1112-PL-1078
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for American Family on its claim that the workers’ compensation setoff provision reduced the limits of the liability policy such that its liability under Justice’s policy was zero. After a determination of liability and damages, Justice’s damages award should be reduced by the $25,000 recovery from Wagner and the percentage of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Justice based upon Wagner’s percentage of comparative fault, up to a maximum of $25,000. Remands with instructions.

Covered Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Clark County, Indiana Commission, et al. v. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana
10A01-1101-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Sellersburg that the town’s annexation proceedings should take priority over an incorporation proceeding and the dismissal of remonstrance filed against annexation. The annexation proceeding is first in time and takes priority over the incorporation proceeding because it was validly instituted in June 2008 and Sellersburg’s initial failure to comply with the statutory notice provisions and hold a public hearing did not invalidate the annexation. Holds that the statutory remonstrance waiver requirements were substantially complied with and thus the remonstrance lacks sufficient valid signatures.

Demarco Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Curtis L. Bass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary and a subsequent order revoking community corrections placement and committing Bass to the DOC for six years.

In the Matter of M.W. and K.W.-N., Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services; M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1201-JC-27
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding that children are in need of services.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT