Opinions June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 24:

Indiana Supreme Court

Curtis Outlaw v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms Court of Appeals’ reversal of trial court’s conviction of and sentence for Class A misdemeanor conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Although the state proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the state failed to present any evidence on the element of endangerment, which would make it a Class A misdemeanor. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated on its own is a Class C misdemeanor.

Steven T. Marbley-El v. State of Indiana
Post-conviction. Finds Marbley-El was not entitled to a jury determination of the factors that led to his six-year sentence, and the trial court correctly did not advise him that he was.

Today’s opinions

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Peter S. Bezich, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen
Civil. Remands to state court. Concludes Bezich’s claim “relates to the rights, duties, ... and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to ... [a] security,” as defined in the 1933 Act, therefore the District Court has no jurisdiction.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Fred Giddings v. State of Indiana
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Giddings’ petition for post-conviction relief. He raised one issue on appeal: whether his appellate counsel was ineffective because she did not raise on direct appeal the issue of unanimous verdicts.

Franklin Electric Company Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Dept. of Workforce Development
Civil. Affirms determination of a liability administrative law judge from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that Franklin Electric Company Inc.’s two subsidiary corporations, Franklin Electric Sales and Franklin Electric Manufacturing, are not new successor employers under the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act.

Weigand Construction Co. Inc. and Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. Stephens Fabrication Inc. and Ball State University Board of Trustees
Civil. Concludes Stephens’ claims against Weigand, Weigand’s Surety, and Ball State University survived bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, Stephens is entitled to the unpaid sums under the base contract: $39,408.09 plus attorney fees, prejudgment interest including the periods of time before and during the bankruptcy proceeding, postjudgment interest, and costs of collection to Stephens. Also concludes Stephens’ claim for additional compensation was untimely under the terms of the relevant contracts and that Weigand is entitled to enforce the contractual provisions in this regard.

M.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms M.B.’s commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of Z.H.; A.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of R.J.K., a child alleged to be a delinquent child v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms court’s finding that R.J.K. was a delinquent child who committed the offense of sexual battery, a Class D felony if committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise