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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT