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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT