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. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.