ILNews

Opinions July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bartholomew County, Indiana v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and Robert L. Amos
93A02-1311-EX-986
Agency action. Affirms administrative law judge’s determination that Robert Amos was entitled to unemployment benefits after he was discharged for playfully shooting another participant with a nonlethal bullet after a training exercise. The review board did not err in finding that the merit board unevenly applied rules to the class of other officers who had playfully shot others in training exercises, Amos was not collaterally estopped from contesting the merit board determination that he was fired for cause, and the administrative law judge did not abuse discretion by denying the county’s request to submit the transcript of the merit board hearing as additional evidence.

Land Innovators Company, L.P., R.N. Thompson, Trinity Homes, Inc. and Trinity Homes, LLC d/b/a Beazer Homes v. Michael L. Bogan and Melody A. Bogan
29A05-1306-PL-308
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to the Bogans against Trinity on liability as to claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and breach of covenants. Also affirms partial summary judgment to the Bogans against Land Innovators and Thompson on liability as to claims of breach of covenants. In addition, affirms granting Trinity’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against the developers’ claim for indemnification. Reverses injunction for removal of the home. Rules the trial court’s decision without presentation of evidence or findings was improper.  

Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina and 500 Rangeline Road, LLC v. Erie Insurace Exchange, Welch & Wilson Properties, LLC d/b/a Hammons Storage, Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company
73A01-1307-PL-311
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment to Erie Insurance Exchange and denial of appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Finds Rangeline is an additional insured under Erie’s policy in the underlying litigation. Robb dissents, agreeing with the trial court that the Additional Insured Endorsement did not provide coverage for Rangeline in the underlying litigation.

Rogelio Garcia v. Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C.

49A02-1401-PL-7
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington P.C. in a lawsuit alleging improper collection of attorney fees arising from a settlement in a medical malpractice representation. The panel found the firm’s fees were authorized under the contract and the manner in which fees were collected does not compel a conclusion that the firm recovered fees in excess of 15 percent as permitted by statute.

James E. Whitfield, M.D. and St. Joseph Primary Care, LLC v. Jerry Wren, Individually and As Personal Representative of The Wrongful Death Estate of Leslie Wren, et al.
34A02-1307-CT-660
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment for Whitfield and St. Joseph Primary Care, concluding the trial court did not err because it is clear that evidence relevant to the breach in the standard of care alleged was presented to the Medical Review Panel as required by the Medical Malpractice Act.

Micah D. Perryman v. State of Indiana
20A03-1308-PC-299
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief to an aggregate 50-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Perryman failed to meet his burden of establishing grounds for post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence and the court did not err in denying his petition.

Duneland Properties, LLC, Duneland Sand, Inc., Duneland Sand Enterprises, LLC, Duneland Holdings, LLC, David Lasco and Lasco Family Trust v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company
56A03-1308-PL-320
Civil plenary. Affirms award of $245,858 for the cost of reconstructing power lines on a new easement after a prior easement was mined for sand, making servicing poles difficult. The trial court did not err when it allowed experts to testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, which the court held is allowed, provided it is the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.E. (Minor Child), and R.K. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
29A02-1312-JT-1064
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental right, holding that the trial court did not err when it required mother R.K., who is deaf, to sign to an interpreter who then spoke her responses aloud. The evidence supports the trial court termination ruling, and R.K. was not denied due process when it required her to sign through an interpreter.

Frederick Bazeley, Jr., As Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick T. Bazeley, III v. Robert Price and Sampson Fiberglass, Inc. (NFP)
20A03-1401-CT-36
Civil tort. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Robert Price and Sampson Fiberglass in Frederick Bazeley’s wrongful death suit. Remands for proceedings, holding there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the cause of the fatal crash.

Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Ruth A. Cranor (NFP)
45A04-1403-PL-117
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order reinstating Ruth Cranor’s driving privileges.

Warren Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1308-PC-351
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Nicolas Duesler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1311-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 40-year sentence for conviction of four counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.W., (Minor Child), and J.W., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A05-1311-JT-581
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Michelle Rose f/k/a Michelle Grabbe v. Jay D. Grabbe (NFP)
64A04-1312-DR-616
Domestic. Affirms grant of father’s petition for termination of child support. Remands to correct a scrivener’s error.  

Natosha L. Stillions v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1311-CR-508
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of theft.

Eric Barnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-PC-989
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Angela M. Littrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1401-CR-15
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence for conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Thomas J. Wiater v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1403-MI-80
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of petition to expunge a Class A misdemeanor battery conviction. Because all the statutory requirements for expungement were met, the court was obligated to grant the petition.

Jeremy D. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1310-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for conviction of Class B felony child molesting.

In the Matter of the Finding of Contempt Against Tad Bohlsen During the Proceedings of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Dickson Street Investments, LLC (NFP)
49A04-1401-PL-34
Civil plenary. Affirms finding of indirect contempt.

Travis L. Chizum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
50A04-1311-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing methamphetamine and Class D felony convictions of possession of methamphetamine, possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture and maintaining a common nuisance.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions by 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT