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. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT