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. Are you financially squeezed? Do you seek funds to pay off credits and debts Do you seek finance to set up your own business? Are you in need of private or business loans for various purposes? Do you seek loans to carry out large projects Do you seek funding for various other processes? If you have any of the above problems, we can be of assistance to you but I want you to understand that we give out our loans at an interest rate of 3% . Interested Persons should contact me with this below details . LOAN APPLICATION FORM First name: Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd): Loan Amount Needed: Duration: Occupation: Phone: Country: My contact email :jasonwillfinanceloanss@hotmail.com Note:that all mail must be sent to: jasonwillfinanceloanss@hotmail.com Thanks and God Bless . Jason Will

  2. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  3. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  4. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  5. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

ADVERTISEMENT