ILNews

Opinions June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Sharon Gill, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Gale Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.

49S05-1111-CV-672
Civil. Reverses trial court ruling for defendant that Gill did not bring her claim within the time Indiana law requires for a claim arising from the construction of an “improvement to real property.” There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Evansville Sheet Metal Works’ work constituted an “improvement to real property” as that phrase is commonly understood. Holds that for purposes of the construction statute of repose, an “improvement to real property” is a “permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.”

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Brown v. Chris Guinn
22A01-1111-SC-524
Civil plenary. Affirms breach of contract ruling for defendant, holding that the trial court did not err or commit reversible error in its ruling in which a contract was not presented in court, but to which both parties attested.

Jesse Clements v. Ralph Albers (NFP)
49A05-1105-PL-257 & 49A04-1201-PL-9
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and remands in part for further argument on damages awarded on counterclaim.

Casey R. Greene v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A01-1109-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions for Class C felony dealing in marijuana and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Scott W. Schwichtenberg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1109-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction on a Class C felony count of incest.

Jeremy W. Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1112-CR-592
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reduce a Class A misdemeanor battery conviction to a Class B misdemeanor and modify sentence accordingly.

Ryan Keith Winchester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1109-CR-882
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction on a Class B felony count of burglary.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at 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