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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT