ILNews

Opinions July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was released Monday after IL deadline.
Dalmas Maurice Otieno Anyango and Jane Tinna Agola Otieno, as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Isaiah Omondi Otieno, Deceased v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., et al.
49S04-1207-CT-434
Civil tort. Affirms trial court ruling dismissing the case based on forum non conveniens, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that another more convenient, adequate forum was available to plaintiffs in a wrongful death action.

Opinions July 31, 2012

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Carol Aschermann v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, et al.
12-1230
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Affirms the District Court judgment in favor of the insurers, in which an insurer stopped paying a worker’s disability benefits claim, holding that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana
20S04-1201-CR-5
Criminal. Reverses habitual-offender enhancement but summarily affirms the COA’s ruling that an executed term of 20 years is not inappropriate. Remanded to trial court with instructions to enter an order for an executed term of 20 years. Justice Massa dissents.

Shepherd Properties Co., d/b/a Shepco Commercial Finishes v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91
49S04-1112-PL-697
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling that private parties are liable for attorney fees of a substantially prevailing plaintiff under the Access to Public Records Act. Remands for determination of what additional attorney fees the union incurred under the APRA as a result of Shepherd Properties’ appeal. Chief Justice Dickson and Justice Massa dissent without opinion.

The Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., d/b/a The Presbytery of Ohio Valley, d/b/a Ohio Valley Presbytery, et al. v. OPC, Inc., f/k/a Olivet Presbyterian Church, Inc., et al.
82S02-1105-MF-314
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses and remands to the trial court for further proceedings in this property dispute, holding that neither party is fully entitled to either the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Olivet, nor the appeals court’s reversal and grant of summary judgment for the Presbytery. Justices Sullivan and Massa dissent.

Sean Thomas Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan
71S03-1111-DR-644
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court ruling that it had no authority to modify the property agreement between Sean and Dee Anna Ryan without Dee Anna’s consent. Finds the language of the parties’ agreement allows the court to conclude as a matter of contract law that Dee Anna is bound to agree to sales prices for the properties that would produce net proceeds less than those stated in the agreement.

James C. Purcell v. Old National Bank
49S02-1201-CT-4
Civil tort. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Trial Rule 50(A) in its determination that the evidence presented by Purcell was insufficient to merit presentation of evidence to the jury. When Stein’s interrogatory responses are viewed as a whole and in conjunction with his trial testimony, the import is that this evidence – standing alone – is insufficient to support Purcell’s intentional tort claims under the court’s qualitative analysis. Also agrees that Old National did not owe a duty of care to Purcell. Chief Justice Dickson and Justice Rucker dissent in part.

Indiana Court of Appeals
The Estate of K. David Short by Judith Y. Short, Personal Representative v. Brookville Crossing 4060 LLC d/b/a Baymont Inns & Suites and MPH Hotels, Inc. d/b/a Baymont Inns & Suites
49A02-1112-CT-1128
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that defendants did not have reason to know of the plaintiff’s peril.

James L. Hebner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1111-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses part three convictions of resisting law enforcement, one as a Class D felony and two as Class A misdemeanors.

Samuel Davis, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1110-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony operating while intoxicated causing death.
 
Zachary Daye Riffle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1201-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted burglary.

Tommy Joe Doublin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A05-1110-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and adjudication as a habitual offender.
 
Joshua Wotowiec v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Joseph Peters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1108-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss child molesting charges.

Micole Draughon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-995
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part sentence for Class C felony criminal recklessness, remanding to the trial court to conduct a hearing on indigency and how restitution is to be paid.

Kelly Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1112-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms trial court revocation of probation.  

Michael Burnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1119
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

In re the Guardianship of Thora Moulton: Alison E. Clapp (O'Callaghan) v. Donald J. Evans (NFP)
64A04-1201-GU-13
Guardianship. Reverses award of attorney fees and guardianship-related fees to Evans, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding fees filed too late.

David E. Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1112-CR-668
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Smithers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A04-1111-PC-617
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.  

Melissa Bruce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1110-CR-476
Criminal. Affirms sentence for neglect of a dependent as a Class B felony.

Cynthia R. Atkinson v. Indiana Dept. of Administration (NFP)
49A04-1202-PL-81
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  2. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  3. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  4. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  5. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

ADVERTISEMENT