ILNews

Opinions July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was released Friday after IL deadline.
In the Matter of Thomas E. Q. Williams
30S00-1101-DI-37
Attorney discipline. Suspends attorney for two years without automatic reinstatement for engaging in misconduct by charging an unreasonable attorney fee to an elderly client, converting funds belonging to the client, and related misconduct.

Monday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Winforge, Inc., et al., v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., et al.
10-3178
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms trial court judgment for defendants, agreeing that the parties had never entered into a final, enforceable contract.

Indiana Supreme Court
Thomas R. Crowel v. Marshall County Drainage Board
50S03-1202-MI-71
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court ruling assessing a portion of a drain reconstruction’s costs, holding that Crowel receives a benefit by virtue of the drainage.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Raymond P. Coleman
29A05-1108-CR-435
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of trial court’s grant of motion to dismiss, holding the state lacks statutory authority to bring the appeal.

The Peniel Group, Inc. and Beech Grove Holdings, LLC v. Elizabeth Bannon, Kenneth G. Schaefer, Linda A. Schaefer, et al.
49A02-1201-PL-42
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Kenneth G. and Linda A. Schaefer, Betty Benefiel, Janet Beeler, and Charles and Beth Dodson, finding that Beech Grove Holdings is barred from bringing a claim under Environmental Legal Action statutes.

Jeffery Alholm v. Rebecca (Alholm) Allen (NFP)
48A05-1109-DR-466
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court modification of child custody and parenting time, and contempt order against father.
 
Bruce A. Craig v. Cynthia E. Craig (NFP)
92A03-1112-DR-584
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s division of property.

Scott Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1081
Criminal. Affirms bench trial conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Lawrence Ray Holley, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1005-PC-652
Post-conviction relief. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief and remands, finding the court erred when it refused to admit trial transcripts into the record.

Elex Baltazar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1111-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of murder.

Michael Mangan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1110-CR-555
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of murder.

James L. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1100
Criminal. Affirms 75-year sentence for convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony criminal confinement and being a habitual offender.

Fortune Management, Inc. v. Design Collaborative, Inc. (NFP)
34A02-1110-CC-1131
Civil collections. Affirms finding that an oral contract existed and that damages were awardable for breach of that contract, and that Fortune could not prevail on the mitigation of damages issue. Reserves in part and remands to trial court to vacate judgment on motion to correct error and restore its original judgment.
 
Katie C. Graber v. Dale Graber (NFP)
02A04-1112-DR-696
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court division of assets.

Barbara A. Johnson and William T. Johnson, both individually and as trustees of the Barbara A. Johnson Living Trust Dated 12-17-1996 v. Joseph Wysocki and M. Carmen Wysocki (NFP)
45A04-1111-CT-610
Civil tort. Reverses trial court finding for the Wysockis on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation; affirms court’s denial of the Wysockis’ request for attorney fees.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT