ILNews

Opinions June 18, 2010

June 18, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.
Indiana Supreme Court

Christine Dugan v. Mittal Steel, USA, Inc., et al.
45S05-1002-CV-121
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Mittal Steel USA and Jay Komorowski. Of the two alleged occasions of defamation per se at issue, the one asserted in paragraph 7 of Dugan’s complaint does not constitute defamation per se. Although the statement alleged in paragraph 6 of the complaint qualifies as defamation per se, there is no genuine issue of fact undermining the defendants' claim of qualified privilege.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Randyl A. McCauley and Deanna R. McCauley v. James S. Harris and Diane C. Harris
28A04-0907-CV-421
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the Harrises in their request for a permanent injunction against the McCauleys enjoining them from interfering with the Harrises’ use and enjoyment of a 30-foot wide ingress and egress that runs over the McCauleys’ property. The trial court properly concluded that the Harrises’ use and enjoyment of the easement for ingress and egress includes the right to use the easement in its entirety and to construct a roadway over all or any part of the easement. Also affirms order the McCauleys remove a portion of their pole barn that lies within the Harrises’ easement.
 
KB Home Indiana Inc. v. Rockville TBD Corporation

49A02-0909-CV-881
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Rockville in KB Home’s negligence complaint. The trial court erred in finding the economic loss doctrine bars the claim. Affirms summary judgment for Rockville on KB’s claims for trespass and nuisance.
 
Christina Cisternino v. Grant Communications Inc. (NFP)
49A05-0912-CV-735
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Cisternino’s complaint against Grant Communications Inc. pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(E).
 
Daniel L. Anway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-0912-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and failing to stop after an accident.

Douglas W. Kemp v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A04-0911-CR-641
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony child molesting following a guilty plea.
 
P.G. v. T.G. (NFP)
22A01-0912-CV-596
Civil. Affirms denial of P.G. (father)’s petition to change custody after T.L.G. (mother) filed a motion to relocate their minor child out of Indiana.
 
James Huesman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A03-0911-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove defendant from Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry.
 
Timothy E. Strowmatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-0910-PC-587
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Jerome McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-642
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and finding McKinney to be a habitual offender.
 
Adrian Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-PC-1183
Post-conviction. Affirms sentence received for four convictions of conspiracy to commit forgery, all as Class C felonies.
 
Anthony Emmett Collett v. Kelly Jean Collett (NFP)
89A05-0912-CV-728
Civil. Affirms trial court order declining jurisdiction and deferring jurisdiction of Anthony Collett’s initial child custody determination action to a Minnesota court.
 
Sherrie K. Hansen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1002-CR-63
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class D felony theft.
 
State of Indiana v. John W. Holler (NFP)
57A03-0910-CR-462
Criminal. Affirms denial of state’s motion to correct error.
 
C.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0906-EX-526
Civil. Affirms decision of Indiana Unemployment Insurance Review Board that affirms the findings and conclusions of an administrative law judge who denied C.E.’s application for unemployment benefits.

Bob Gasich v. East Chicago Redevelopment Comm. (NFP)

45A03-0910-CV-500
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Gasich’s “petition to void and withdraw the order of appropriation of real estate and appointment of appraisers.”
 
Mark Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0908-CR-486
Criminal. Dismisses Taylor’s appeal following revocation of his probation finding the presented issue is moot.
 
Kerwin M. Ward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0912-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of battery upon law enforcement officer, one count of battery by bodily waste, one count of resisting law enforcement, and one count of disorderly conduct.
 
Linda Ruth Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1001-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 30-year sentence for Class B felony burglary with a habitual offender enhancement.
 
Angel Abarca v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1018
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to aggravated battery, a Class B felony.
 
Bray A. Tibbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-0911-CR-541
Criminal. Affirms Tibbs’ conviction of and sentence for burglary as a Class B felony; remands with instructions to vacate restitution order.
 
Bernard Arvin v. Capital One Bank (NFP)
53A04-0909-CV-509
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Capital One Bank.
 
FK Inc. v. See USA LLC (NFP)
56A05-0911-CV-654
Civil. Reverses trial court’s award of $82,514.50 in damages and $85,778.35 in attorney fees to See USA on its claim that FK committed check fraud. Also reverses award of $204,499.58 in lost profits damages to See USA on its breach of contract claim against FK. Remands for further proceedings.
 
William T. Casbon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0910-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s dismissal of motion to vacate sexually violent predator status.
 
Patsy C. Battin v. Curtis R. Battin (NFP)
03A04-0912-CV-715
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Patsy C. Battin’s request for spousal maintenance. Reverses the trial court’s decision to divide the net marital estate equally, and remands with instructions to order a 60/40 split of the net marital estate in Patsy Battin’s favor; reverses trial court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees; and remands with instructions to order Curtis Battin to pay 50 percent of her attorney’s fees.
 
Darren A. Snyder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-0910-CR-600
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate a conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor and hold a new trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT