Opinions June 18, 2010

June 18, 2010
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.
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
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

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)
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)
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)

Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony child molesting following a guilty plea.
P.G. v. T.G. (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove defendant from Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry.
Timothy E. Strowmatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Jerome McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and finding McKinney to be a habitual offender.
Adrian Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class D felony theft.
State of Indiana v. John W. Holler (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of state’s motion to correct error.
C.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
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)

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)
Criminal. Dismisses Taylor’s appeal following revocation of his probation finding the presented issue is moot.
Kerwin M. Ward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 30-year sentence for Class B felony burglary with a habitual offender enhancement.
Angel Abarca v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to aggravated battery, a Class B felony.
Bray A. Tibbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Capital One Bank.
FK Inc. v. See USA LLC (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s dismissal of motion to vacate sexually violent predator status.
Patsy C. Battin v. Curtis R. Battin (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate a conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor and hold a new trial.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well