ILNews

Opinions July 27, 201

July 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Leonard Lapsley, et al. v. Xtek Inc.
11-3313
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms denial of Xtek’s Daubert motion that sought to bar Dr. Gary Hutter from offering his expert opinions, which were essential to Lapsley’s case that a design defect in Xtek’s equipment was the cause of his accident. In this case, the District Court’s stated analysis of the proposed testimony was brief, but it was also directly to the point and was sufficient to trigger deferential review on appeal. The District Court did not misapply Daubert.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following decisions Thursday after IL deadline
Indiana Dept. of Revenue v. Miller Brewing Co.

49S10-1203-TA-136
Tax appeal. Reverses Tax Court ruling that Miller owes no tax on certain sales to Indiana consumers, holding that the Tax Court clearly erred in determining that an example of the application of an administrative rule had the force of law.

Douglas Cottingham v. State of Indiana
06S01-1112-CR-703
Criminal. Finds the statutory amendment to Indiana Code 35-38-2.6-6 regarding good time credit for home detention retroactively does not apply to Cottingham. By using “is placed” in the statute, the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply only to people who are placed on home detention on or after the amendment’s effective date.

Robert Smith v. State of Indiana
49S02-1109-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and placement in a community-corrections program and order Smith serve time in the Department of Correction. Rejects Smith’s argument that his due process right to confrontation in revocation hearings requires confrontation as defined in Crawford. Affirms finding that the state’s Exhibit 1 was substantially trustworthy, so his due process right to confrontation was not violated by its admission.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Cherry v. State of Indiana
55A01-1112-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions and sentences for Class B felony aiding, inducing or causing dealing in heroin and Class D felony unlawful possession of a syringe, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Dale Brenon v. The 1st Advantage Corp, d/b/a Omega Insurance Services
93A02-1202-EX-108
Executive administrative/workers’ compensation. Reverses and remands to the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana dismissal of Brenon’s application for adjustment of claim. The court held that the decision is not sustainable under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Wisconsin laws or Supreme Court precedent, and that the board’s decision gave no effect to the reservation of rights clauses contained in settlement agreements.

Phillip L. White v. State of Indiana
18A05-1201-PC-1
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, holding that White cannot demonstrate that his appellate counsel’s performance was deficient.

Kathleen K. Peterink v. State of Indiana
57A03-1112-CR-586
Criminal. Reverses and remands, finding that the trial court’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class A misdemeanor.

Andre Graham v. State of Indiana
10A01-1108-CR-440
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class A felony possession of cocaine, Class B felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance, and Class D felony possession of a controlled substance, holding that Graham’s constitutional rights were not violated during the traffic stop that resulted in his arrest.

Ronald Davis v. State of Indiana
49A05-1109-CR-459
Criminal. Affirms 245-year aggregate sentence resulting from a guilty plea to four counts of murder, one count of Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm, ruling that the sentence was not inappropriate in light of Davis’s character and the nature of the crime.   

Damon Tyree Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1111-CR-1020
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

The Carl Kaetzel Trust U/T/D December 10, 1977, The Roberta Kaetzel Trust U/T/D December 10, 1977 and Carl Kaetzel, Roberta Kaetzel, et al v. Jon Marc Kaetzel and Beverly Kaetzel (NFP)
74A01-1201-PL-36
Civil plenary/rescission of deed and constructive fraud. Affirms trial court determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the remedy of rescission and that judgment was properly entered for Jon and Beverly Kaetzel.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S.; D.S. v. Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1112-JT-592
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joshua A. Willey-Rumback v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1111-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and revocation of probation.

Chad A. Jeffries v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A04-1110-PC-574
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine.

Craig Watts v. Betty (Watts) Lankford (NFP)
42A01-1111-DR-523
Domestic relations/child support. Affirms trial court order for father to pay child support arrearage and mother’s attorney fees.

Anthony Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A04-1109-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery with a deadly weapon and residential entry.
 
Michael S. Dornbusch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1112-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony burglary and a count of Class D felony attempted residential entry.
 
Tarrance Battle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-946
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine.
 
The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT