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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT