ILNews

Opinions June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Richard Patrick Wilson and Billy Don Wilson v. Gene Isaacs, Sheriff of Cass County, and Brad Craven
09S05-1003-CV-149
Civil. Reverses grant of summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ liability claims against the sheriff for the conduct of Deputy Brad Craven. Affirms summary judgment for claims against Craven personally. Holds that a law enforcement officer's use of force in excess of the reasonable force authorized by statute is not shielded from liability under the "enforcement of a law" immunity provided in Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3(8) and that genuine issues of fact exist, precluding summary judgment. Chief Justice Shepard dissents without opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Julianne E. Tamasy v. Peter S. Kovacs
49A05-0910-CV-563
Civil. Affirms order granting physical custody of the parties’ children to Kovacs. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tamasy’s request to transfer the custody proceedings to Massachusetts, in excluding certain testimony at trial, in modifying the previous custody order, and in issuing a July 23, 2009, order regarding Tamasy’s emergency motion to compel parenting time.

Indianapolis-Marion Co. Public Library v. Thornton Thomasetti Engineers, et al.

6A05-0906-CV-327
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Thorton Thomasetti Engineers on the common law indemnity cross-claim and contractual indemnity cross-claim. Declines library’s invitation to adopt the doctrine of implied contractual indemnity. Reverses summary judgment for TTE on the cross-claim for breach of professional standard of care. It is up a jury to decide whether TTE committed a breach of damages to which WMP may be entitled. Remands for further proceedings on this cross-claim.

American Family Insurance v. Beazer Homes, et al.
49A02-0912-CV-1292
Civil. Reverses dismissal of American Family Insurance’s claim for failure to prosecute against Beazer Homes and other defendants. The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E). The record does not reveal a history of an egregious pattern of deliberate delay on the part of American Family or that American Family defied any court orders. Remands with instructions to reinstate the cause of action.

Elmer D. Baker, v. State of Indiana
17A04-0905-CR-299
Criminal. Grants rehearing to clarify holding on the issue of the amendment of the charging information but affirms original opinion affirming convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. Clarifies holding to state that the applicable deadline for amending the information is not “before the commencement of the trial” that ended in a mistrial; rather, it is “before the commencement of the trial” that was held on the amended charges, and the one from which Baker filed his appeal.

Eliud Anthony Delgado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-0911-CR-1142
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

Travis Halveland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1002-CR-111
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Stardust Development, LLC v. City of Bloomington (NFP)

53A04-0908-CV-487
Civil. Reverses small claims judgment in favor of Bloomington in Stardust Development’s action to recover costs of a tree branch removal. Remands with instructions.

Martin Serrano v. State of Indiana and the City of Fort Wayne (NFP)

02A03-0908-CV-362
Civil. Reverses judgment in favor of the state and City of Fort Wayne ordering the forfeiture of Serrano’s truck, which was seized after a traffic stop.

Maurice Hairston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-137
Criminal. Affirms convictions of burglary as a Class B felony, receiving stolen property as a Class D felony, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Jason D. Arbuckle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

72A01-0912-CR-618
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.L.; H.L. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1002-JT-100
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT