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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT