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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT