ILNews

Opinions July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mary McCraney v. Steven Gibson, et al.
49A05-1009-CT-528
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Steven Gibson, and Bradley and Natalie Calow with respect to Mary McCraney’s negligence claim resulting in personal injuries. Applying the two-prong test, which finds that the duty of reasonable care imposed upon a landowner is measured by the landowner’s control or possession of the property and the landowner’s knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the dog, McCraney fails to prove the landlords knew of the dog’s violent propensity.

Jo. W. v. Je. W.
02A04-1012-DR-811
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of husband Jo.W.’s Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. An allegation of intrinsic fraud is governed by T.R. 60(B)(3), and a motion for relief under T.R. 60(B)(3) must be brought within one year from the date of the judgment challenged. Husband’s motion was not timely and the trial court properly denied it.

Marc Randolph v. Edwin Buss, et al.
33A04-1010-MI-684
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on the new language of Indiana Code 35-50-6-3.3(e), Randolph was not entitled to the unused educational credit time.

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana
35A04-1010-CR-641
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended. The state failed to prove the 2009 Yamaha Zuma scooter was a motor vehicle. Judge Baker dissents.

Robert Fuentes v. State of Indiana
45A05-1011-CR-717
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder. The trial court erred in refusing to tender Robert Fuentes’ instruction on self-defense as it was a more complete statement of the law. It was a harmless error as the jury could not have properly found that Fuentes acted in self-defense when he shot the victim a second time.

Jamall Borum v. State of Indiana
49A02-1010-CR-1099
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony attempted carjacking and Class C felony attempted robbery. There was not a reasonable possibility that the jury relied upon exactly the same facts in rendering convictions on each charge, and the single larceny rule and continuous crime doctrine do not apply. Remands to correct the abstract of judgment and judgment of conviction consistent with the opinion.

Jay C. Gagne v. State of Indiana
03A01-1101-IF-16
Infraction. Affirms jury verdict that Gagne made an illegal U-turn on the interstate. Gagne’s actions violated the provisions of Indiana Code 9-21-8-19.

Mat Warren, Betty Jo Ball, et al. v. E. Lee Warren, Lilly Frayer, et al.
02A03-1102-PL-43
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment and order in favor of E. Lee Warren and others that found they are entitled according to Indiana Code 23-14-57-5 to pursue the disinterment and re-interment of their parents. The issues before the court are res judiciata and not available for review.

Robin (Wren) Lechien v. Michael W. Wren
48A02-1007-DR-882
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that son Nathan has repudiated his relationship with his father, relieving the father of any further responsibility to contribute toward college expenses. Reverses modification of father’s weekly child support obligation because the trial court erred in adjusting father’s support obligation. Remands with instructions to enter a child support order consistent with this opinion.

Matthu R. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A05-1012-CR-756
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Michael Hickingbottom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1012-PC-1429
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.M.; M.G. v. IDCS (NFP)
49A02-1012-JT-1420
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert Pope, et al. v. Patrick Smith (NFP)
17A04-1010-SC-655
Small claim. Affirms order of eviction in favor of landlord Patrick Smith.

William J. Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1011-CR-634
Criminal. Affirms revocation of 23 years of Pearson’s suspended sentence.

Teresa A. Mills v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1012-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.R, et al.; T.E. v. IDCS (NFP)
20A05-1101-JT-9
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Richard D. Gasper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1009-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony battery with serious bodily injury.

Melissa Kay Sneed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1103-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Herschel S. Crain, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1101-PC-36
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Goins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1321
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Herbert Buck v. Sonia Buck (NFP)
48A02-1009-DR-1070
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Herbert Buck’s motion to correct error after the trial court ordered he reimburse Sonia for certain taxes. Remands with instructions.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.B.; M.B. v. IDCS (NFP)
42A01-1101-JT-42
Juvenile tort. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Shawn Michael Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1011-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Christian Behling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1010-CR-688
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

DeQuan D. Branch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1126
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex and/or school property.

Karl L. Brunk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-877
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor endangering a person by operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT