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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT