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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT