ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Vincent M. Butler, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1008-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Butler’s probation. The record shows that the trial court adequately advised Butler of his right to counsel and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived that right. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the balance of his four-year previously suspended sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents.

In the Matter of the Trust of Harrison Eiteljorg
49A02-1005-TR-485
Trust. Affirms probate court finding that the trustees failed to distribute a portion of the trust corpus in a timely manner. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding on liability as the trustees knew there was property available in the trust for distribution yet declined to timely distribute it to the beneficiaries. Reverses assessment of damages and attorney fees and remands for a re-evaluation of the compensatory damages and a reduction in attorney fees. Judge Baker dissents.

Gary Ludban, et al. v. Ronald Burtch, et al.
44A05-1007-PL-437
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling regarding the survey of land. The survey the Burtches had conducted was not erroneous as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in determining that the fence between the Ludban and Burtch properties establishes the property line, and the trial court did not err in denying the Ludbans’ adverse possession claim to a strip of land used for access to the lake. The trial court did not err in discrediting the survey the Ludbans had done or in implying that Gary Ludban disturbed the original monumentation between lots 29 and 30. The determination of the property line between the Reeds and the Ludbans based on the line of occupation is supported by the evidence.

Kimberly L. Benedict v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1359
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Paternity of K.B.; J.B. v. J.D. (NFP)
02A04-1008-JP-533
Juvenile. Affirms trial court grant of permission to allow mother to relocate to Tennessee with daughter.

Jerry L. Coleman v. Marla J. Coleman (NFP)
38A05-1008-DR-490
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Jerry Coleman’s motion to correct error after the court awarded custody of his son to ex-wife, Marla Coleman, and twice found Jerry in contempt of court.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted seven transfers and denied 34 for the week ending June 24, 2011.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT