ILNews

Opinions July 29, 2010

July 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Louis and Karen Metro Family LLC, et al. v. Lawrenceburg Conservancy District, et al.
09-2418, -2482
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Magistrate Judge William G. Hussman.
Civil. Affirms the City of Lawrenceburg and the Lawrenceburg Conservancy District breached their contract with the Metros to convey land to the Metros based on the option contract their company held. Vacates decision to reform the contract to change the date by which the option could be exercised from 18 months after completion of the project to 18 months after the date of the District Court opinion. Remands for further proceedings to calculate damages and to assess costs against the district and city.

United States of America v. David Diaz-Gaudarama
09-4048
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms District Court denial to credit Diaz-Gaudarama with the two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The District Court properly relied on the last-minute nature of Diaz-Gaudarama’s guilty plea and his own statements during his plea colloquy don’t reflect remorse. He had even faked psychological illness in an attempt to evade punishment.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
S.T. v. Community Hospital North In-Patient Psychiatric Unit
49A04-0910-CV-617
Civil. Affirms temporary involuntary commitment of S.T. There is sufficient evidence to support the commitment for a period of no more than 90 days. Declines to change the standard of review in cases involving sufficiency of evidence required for involuntary commitment.

Eric C. Danner v. State of Indiana
71A03-1001-CR-13
Criminal. Affirms convictions of dealing in cocaine, possession with intent to deliver over three grams as a Class A felony and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. The decision of the corporal to impound Danner’s car, which was later approved by her supervisor, was valid under paragraph K of the written police department policy and the evidence was properly admitted. The corporal’s observation of the marijuana was a proper plain view observation providing the officer with probable cause, and the search of the car doesn’t violate state or federal constitutional rights.

Elizabeth Bernel v. Jeffrey A. Bernel
46A03-0911-CV-511
Civil. Affirms denial of injunctive relief for Elizabeth. Reverses conclusion that the settlement agreement didn’t require Jeffrey to refinance or otherwise satisfy the outstanding balance on the JP Morgan Bank line of credit as necessary to remove the lien of debt from that account. Remands for the dissolution court to enter a money judgment in the amount of $950,000 for Elizabeth and against Jeffrey and to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees. Holds Elizabeth shall be awarded prejudgment interest.  

State of Indiana v. Carla F. Wells (NFP)
71A03-0911-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms trial court order granting Wells’ motion to suppress.

Eastern Livestock, Inc. and Thomas P. Gibson v. Bill Day (NFP)
88A01-0909-CV-436
Civil. Affirms findings regarding “missing cattle” and the damages award to Day, charges made by Eastern and/or Gibson in Day’s account, and overpayments that Eastern and Gibson allegedly made to Day. Also affirms conclusion that Day’s pasture contracts with Gibson were not unconscionable and the refusal to award prejudgment interest to Day.

Donna Demko v. Jeffrey P. Demko (NFP)
64A03-0811-CV-550
Civil. Grants petition for rehearing and reaffirms original opinion on child support, custody and other matters.

Jeffrey B. Flora v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1002-CR-93
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove sexually violent predator status.

Scott S. Nowatzke v. Lorine L. Nowatzke (NFP)
46A05-0910-CV-611
Civil. Affirms division of property pursuant to the dissolution of the marriage.

Debra L. Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Harvey L. Lancaster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanors disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

Mickel J. Mills v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0910-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony criminal trespass and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Robert F. Dougan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-0912-CR-1268
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class D felony residential entry and three counts of Class D felony intimidation.

Ryan E. Whitley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1001-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony public indecency.

Raymond Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0912-CR-1285
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Joe L. Knuckles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1002-CR-57
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Adam N. Bock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1003-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated with an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.08 or more as a Class C misdemeanor.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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