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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT