ILNews

Opinions June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gasser Chair Company, Inc. v. Marlene J. Nordengreen, Horseshoe Hammond, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Casino
45A03-1210-CT-435
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Horseshoe Casino and denial of Gasser Chair Co.’s motion on Nordengreen’s claim that she was injured at the casino while using a chair Gasser manufactured. Gasser has not demonstrated Horseshoe had actual knowledge the chair was dangerous. Declines to hold a premises owner’s knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises cannot be determined without first knowing the dangerous condition was the “sole proximate case” of an injury. Remands for the trial court to resolve the remaining issues raised in Horseshoe’s third-party complaint against Gasser.

Constance Anderson v. State of Indiana

02A03-1211-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class D felony criminal mischief and five counts of Class A misdemeanor animal cruelty. Anderson has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of mitigating factors. Declines to revise the sentence under App. R. 7(B) as Anderson’s sentence cannot be said to be inappropriate in light of her character and the nature of her offense.

John M. Mayer, Jr., as Special Administrator of the Estate of Paige R. Winn, Deceased v. Michael. W. Davis

22A01-1212-CT-570
Civil tort. Affirms judgment reflecting $60,000 award in favor of Davis against Winn’s estate for injuries he sustained in an accident with Winn. Davis’ claim against Winn’s estate was not filed in a timely manner, and, as a result, Davis is barred from recovering any funds from the estate. Davis’ recovery is limited to funds recovered from Winn’s insurance carrier in the amount of Winn’s insurance liability policy limits. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the judgment because the judgment is a valid judgment despite the fact that the excess judgment cannot be collected from Winn’s estate.

Mark A. Sheese v. State of Indiana (NFP)

84A01-1301-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, R.C. and J.C., Minor Children, D.S., Mother, and E.S., Stepfather v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
88A01-1211-JC-510
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of children as children in need of services.

Kenneth Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)

10A01-1210-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony burglary and adjudication as a habitual offender.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT