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. 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