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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT