ILNews

Opinions June 4, 2014

June 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana
49S02-1311-CR-734
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor, finding no fundamental error by prosecutor’s statements during closing argument. The prosecutor improperly urged the jury to convict Ryan for reasons other than his guilt, but his failure to contemporaneously object and enable the trial court to take corrective action results in procedural default on his appellate claim.

Wednesday’s opinions
Lori Nicklas v. Von Tobel Corporation, Individually, and d/b/a Von Tobel Lumber; and Von Tobel Lumber Company, Inc.
64A03-1310-CC-429
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Von Tobel Corp. and the denial of Nicklas’ motion for summary judgment on the company’s action to recover money owed on a promissory note executed by Nicklas and her husband. An agreed judgment against one obligor does not merge and extinguish the obligation of another person jointly and severally liable on the same contract, so Van Tobel was free to seek a judgment against Lori Nicklas after an agreed judgment with Shawn Nicklas had been entered.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Mildred Borgwald, Deceased v. Old National Bank and Raelynn Pound
84A01-1302-ES-80
Estate, supervised. Affirms decision in favor of Old National Bank and Pound, entitling the bank to foreclose on the mortgage and equity line of credit against the estate. The trial court properly excluded the testimony of the estate’s proffered expert witness, Dr. Robert Lalouche pursuant to Evid. R. 702; the estate was not denied the opportunity to make an offer of proof regarding Lalouche’s anticipated testimony; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting redacted, certified copies of medical records; and ONB’s mortgage was not invalidated.

Michael W. Palmby v. Karen M. Palmby
32A04-1310-DR-506
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Michael Palmby’s verified petition for revocation of spousal maintenance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request and instead modified the payment terms of the accumulated rehabilitative maintenance.

Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.
49A02-1304-PL-340
Civil plenary. KB Home has successfully alleged “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” pursuant to the policies and that the policies’ “expected and intended” and “contractual liability” exclusions do not work to bar coverage in this case. However, the designated evidence generates a question of fact as to whether the known loss doctrine works to bar coverage in this case, and so remands for trial on that question only. Reverses the trial court’s determination that Indiana Insurance is obligated to indemnify Kopetsky as a question not yet ripe for adjudication and affirms that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on her bad faith counterclaim.

Marilee Garrison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1312-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony conspiracy to commit theft.

Shemika L. Boyd v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Amazon Com INDC, LLC (NFP)
93A02-1310-EX-886
Agency action. Affirms decision that Boyd is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Corday C. Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1311-CR-448
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class C felony child molesting and one count of Class A felony child molesting.

Dennis Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1310-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Nathan Ferguson and Deanna Ferguson v. Shiel Sexton Company, Inc. d/b/a Shiel Sexton, And WR Dunkin & Son, Incorporated; Lynch, Harrison & Brumleve, Inc.; et al (NFP)
29A02-1310-CT-839
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Shiel Sexton on the Fergusons’ negligence claim.

Aubrey Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-606
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Jason Severs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1310-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms sentence for securities fraud as a Class B felony, unlawful acts related to offer of sale of a security as a Class C felony and violating broker-dealer registration requirements as a Class C felony.

Jacob Lutz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1310-CR-451
Criminal. Affirms determination that Lutz is a sexually violent predator.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT