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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT