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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT