ILNews

Opinions June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Brad W. Passwater v. State of Indiana
48S05-1210-PC-583
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court denial of Passwater’s petition for relief. In the decision, the court reconsiders the instructions it approved in Georgopuls v. State, 735 N.E. 2d 1138, 1143 n.3 (Ind. 2000), for juries faced with the option of finding a defendant not responsible by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. The court concluded the instruction provided by the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction 11.20 is better and approved its use.

Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana
71S03-1306-CR-455
Criminal. Affirms aggregate term of 53 years for convictions of battery, a Class A felony and neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony. The court disapproves of giving consideration of a community’s outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. However, the court does agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate.

In Re Mandate of Funds for Center Township of Marion County Small Claims Court Order for Mandate and Mandate of Funds
49S00-1207-MF-420
Mandate for funds. Affirms special judge’s decree approving renovations, additional staff and prohibiting relocation of the small claims court as had been sought by the Center Township trustee and board. Justices conclude the record is replete with evidence that moving the court from its present location poses a clear and present danger to access to justice for the litigants it serves, and that maintaining and upgrading the Court in its present location is reasonably necessary to preserve that access. Orders the township trustee to relinquish control over court functions, noting authority over its employees and its financial operations shall be vested solely in the court.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Horse Racing Commission v. Edmund W. Martin, Jr.
49A02-1206-PL-512
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court order setting aside and vacating an exclusion order issued by the Indiana Horse Racing Commission against Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association director Edmund Martin Jr., and remands for reinstatement of the order. The court held that the exclusion order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and Indiana Code 4-31-6-1 and Rule 5.5-1-1(a) required him to be licensed as an active participant in the group’s activities at Indiana pari-mutuel horse racetracks.

Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange
49A02-1211-PL-908
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Erie Insurance Exchange, holding that a hit-and-run driver was uninsured as a matter of law. Holds that summary judgment instead should have been granted to plaintiffs who sued over denial of coverage in an accident in which their vehicle was totaled but there were no bodily injuries.

Calvin McKeller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-714
Criminal. Affirms conviction after jury trial of Class B felony robbery.

John P. Schaub v. The Estate of Edward G. Schaub and David Schaub, Personal Representative (NFP)
54A01-1301-PL-11
Civil plenary. Reverses damage award of $12,000. Finds the estate did not meet the burden of proof in proving the elements of a replevin claim. The estate failed to present evidence relative to the value of the recreational vehicle on the date that the possession by John Schaub became wrongful.

Larry G. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A2-1208-CR-657
Criminal. Affirms Brown’s convictions and sentences for two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Christopher Gross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A04-1210-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms Gross’ sentence of 30 months of incarceration following his conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Gregory D. Swagger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1212-CR-1018
Criminal. Affirms trial court was statutorily authorized to revoke Swagger’s probation and order him to serve the rest of his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction.

Robert J. Lambright, Shirley A. Lambright, and Dutch Land, Inc. a/k/a Dutchland, Inc. v. Dawn M. Gregory, as Guardian for Donna Lee (NFP)
44A04-1211-CC-589
Civil collection. Reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands for further proceedings. Holds the trial court erred by considering a letter from a certified public account that was not properly part of the designated evidence and that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lenders waived or partially waived enforcement of the penalty provisions.   

Brandon Shane Fitch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1209-CR-481
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of child molesting, each as a Class C felony.
 
David Gibbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1208-CR-406
Criminal. Affirms conviction of arson as a Class B felony.
 
Tony Wombels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1212-CR-652
Criminal. Affirms conviction of carjacking, a Class B felony.

Santos Vasquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-1
Criminal. Affirms conviction of burglary as a class B felony.  

Layne M. Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1211-CR-952
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to theft as a Class D felony. Concludes the sentence the trial court imposed – three years in the Indiana Department of Correction with one year executed and to be served at a work release facility, and two years suspended to supervised probation – is specifically tailored with Jefferson’s particular history and rehabilitative issue in mind.  

Daniel Drake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-972
Criminal. Affirms conviction of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor.

Gersh Zavodnik v. Michela Rinaldi, et al. (NFP)
49A05-1211-CT-595
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of Zavodnik’s case against Rinaldi pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(E).

The Paternity of P.A.B.; K.B. v. J.L. (NFP)
15A04-1210-GU-518
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s order terminating guardianship and granting motion for change of custody to the father. Finds the grandmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that P.A.B.’s interests were substantially and significantly served by continued placement with her.

State of Indiana v. Harley Perkins (NFP)
48A02-1210-CR-823
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s order granting a mistrial and dismissing the charges against Perkins.

Heather Renae Ingle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1211-CR-901
Criminal. Affirms Ingle’s convictions of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Re: Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.W,. and K.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
65A01-1211-JT-535
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Marquis Wilcox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1209-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms Wilcox’s convictions on four counts of Class A felony child molesting.   

Terrance L. Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1210-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license and Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person.

Jarrell Outlaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor auto theft and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Also affirms trial court’s order Outlaw pay $166 in court cost.

Indiana Tax Court
Geoffrey Odle, Personal Representative of the Estate of Floyd L. Odle, Deceased v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-1210-TA-61
Tax. Affirms probate court ruling affirming a denial of a tax refund, holding that beneficiaries of the estate – nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews of a childless couple – were properly classified as Class B and Class C transferees subject to taxation at a higher rate than Class A transferees.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT