ILNews

Opinions July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas Dexter v. State of Indiana
79A04-1212-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms finding by jury after remand that Dexter is a habitual offender and the sentence enhancement of 30 years on his conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. The certified transcript from Dexter’s guilty-plea and sentencing hearing is sufficient to prove one of his underlying felony convictions, and his habitual-offender retrial was not barred by res judicata.

Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District v. Robert W. Teumer and Paula K. Teumer
91A04-1212-PL-638
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment regarding the appropriation of two permanent sewer easements and two temporary construction easements on the Teumers’ property. The court-appointed appraisal was improperly admitted, and there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s damage award. The trial court correctly directed the clerk to refund Twin Lakes’ overpayment but remands with instructions for the court to enter judgment in the amount of $950 in favor of the Teumers instead of a judgment of $5,000.

Daniel J. Chupp v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. (NFP)
41A04-1302-SC-48
Small claim. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss Chupp’s notice of small claim and the denial of his motion to reconsider. Also denies Wyndham’s request for attorney fees.

Tony Mays v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1301-PC-6
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

William Joseph VanHorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1212-CR-992
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for amended abstract of judgment, in which VanHorn requested additional presentence jail credit time.

In Re the Adoption of A.H. and N.H., minor children, D.H., v. A.C.H. (NFP)
17A03-1302-AD-34
Adoption. Affirms the grant of stepmother A.C.H.’s petition to adopt D.H.’s children A.H. and N.H.

Donna M. Brown v. Paul F. Buchmeier and Sally M. Buchmeier d/b/a Fashion Trends (NFP)
33A05-1301-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the Buchmeiers on Brown’s lawsuit alleging breach of duty of care owed to a business invitee by an owner.

Co-Alliance, LLP v. Monticello Farm Service, Inc. (NFP)
91A04-1211-PL-606
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal by Co-Alliance seeking to challenge a court order favorable to Monticello Farm Service because that order is not a final judgment or an interlocutory order appealable as a matter of right.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT