ILNews

Opinions July 19, 2013

July 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenneth Scholz v. Lorraine Kirk (NFP)
37A03-1211-PL-493
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s determination of the amount of damages for the rental income for the farmland. Reverses award of prejudgment interest to Kirk.

Sean Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor dealing marijuana and remands with instructions to vacate Johnson’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana because of a double jeopardy violation.

Dennis Tiller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-CR-928
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of child molesting, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class C felony.

David A. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A05-1211-CR-606
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jesus Mondragon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1212-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms conviction of domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Kathay Van Dyne v. IOM Health Systems LP, d/b/a Lutheran Hospital of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1211-CT-572
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Lutheran Hospital on Van Dyne’s negligence lawsuit filed on behalf of herself and her husband’s estate.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: I.M.A. and L.R.A. (Minor Children), and M.M.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1212-JT-634
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Terrence Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1301-CR-2
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

A.M.D., a Minor by his Parents and Guardians, John Doe and Jane Doe, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Individually v. Young Men's Christian Assoc. of Greater Indianapolis (NFP)
49A04-1211-CT-551
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the YMCA on A.M.D.’s lawsuit alleging negligence.

Lake County Trust Company, Trust 4210, Trust 5061, and Alex Emmanoilidis v. Aox, Inc., and Brian Piunti (NFP)
45A03-1207-PL-309
Civil plenary. Affirms a jury verdict against the trust company as landlord for breach of lease and malicious prosecution.

Louis Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1211-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. 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