ILNews

Opinions June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinions were issued after IL deadline Monday.
Jacob Fuller v.State of Indiana

48S02-1406-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 85 years in prison. Fuller was 15 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

Martez Brown v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 80 years in prison. Brown was 16 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

June 3
Indiana Supreme Court

Virginia E. Alldredge and Julia A. Luker, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Venita Hargis v. The Good Samaritan Home, Inc.
82S01-1305-CT-363
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment, holding that a wrongful death claim against Good Samaritan may proceed. Holds that the Fraudulent Concealment Statute may apply to the Wrongful Death Act’s two-year filing period. Remands for proceedings.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a/k/a Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. United Equipment Leasing, LLC
30A01-1311-CC-507
Collections. Affirms trial court grant of United Equipment’s motion for relief from a May 31, 2012, order. The trial court ruling is sustainable under the trial court’s inherent power to reconsider, vacate or modify any previous order so long as the case has not proceeded to final judgment.

5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc., Eric J. Spiklemire, Portrait America, Inc., A.C. Demaree, Inc., Russ Dellen, Inc., Clean Car, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1306-CT-311
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Filmcraft, Spicklemire, et al. on Keystone’s property tax claim.

Michael G. Stoner v. Amy M. Stoner (McIntire) (NFP)
38A02-1310-DR-879
Domestic. Affirms denial of father’s petition for permanent change of custody and modification of support.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT