Opinions June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry Ault v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of felony murder and remands for a new trial. There was sufficient evidence, without Ault’s testimony, to support a jury instruction on self-defense.

Shepherd Properties Co., d/b/a ShepCo Commercial Finishes v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of ShepCo’s motion to correct error challenging an order awarding attorney fees to International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91 as the prevailing party in an action under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The trial court erroneously imposed upon ShepCo joint and several liability for statutory attorney fees under the APRA as there is no provision for the assessment of attorney fees against a private party in the event of improper nondisclosure under the act. Remands for further proceedings.

David W. Johnson and Priscilla Johnson v. Madison Regatta, Inc., and American Boat Racing Association (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Madison Regatta and American Boat Racing Association on the Johnsons’ complaint for damages after Priscilla was injured after being hit by a car while watching the regatta.

Estate of Maurice Kendrick, Sr., Susan K. Kussart, as Guardian of B.K. v. Estate of Maurice Kendrick, Sr., Crystal Burke-Potts, et al. (NFP)
Estate supervised. Reverses determination that B.K. failed to prove she is an heir of the deceased, Maurice Kendrick Sr. Remands with instructions.

Stephen Ray Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class C felony dealing in marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Kem Linn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentences following guilty plea to Class C felonies corrupt business influence and fraud on a financial institution, and five counts of Class C felony forgery.

Herman Cecil Mallory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason L. Prater v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?