Opinions June 7, 2013

June 7, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Supervised Admin. of the Estate of Cora E. Young, deceased; Terry Douthitt, Kelly Douthitt, and Kevin Douthitt v. Theodore R. Young
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms trial court’s finding that the proceeds of a sale of Cora Young’s property should be distributed to her second husband at her death. Since the property was a specific bequest under Young’s will and was sold before her death, it was adeemed by extinction and therefore the proceeds pass to the residuary beneficiary under her will, which is her second husband.

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann

Civil plenary. Reverses $93,972.18 in damages to Fischer on her breach of contract claim and orders the court to enter a damage award of $117. Holds that the Heymanns committed an anticipatory breach of the purchase agreement on Feb. 10, 2006; that, given the evidence and the trial court’s findings, Fischer’s duty to mitigate arose on Feb. 11, 2006, when she learned of the Heymanns’ breach; and that Fischer failed to act with reasonable diligence to mitigate her damages at her first opportunity, which was no later than Feb. 18, 2006. The trial court acted within its discretion when it limited Fischer’s award for attorney fees and costs, but orders the court to enter an award for those fees commensurate with Fischer’s recovery on the merits and court costs. Judge Bradford dissents.

Jerome K. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for findings and conclusions on the failure to present an officer’s testimony regarding the validity of a license plate as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Reverses on issue of attorney’s failure to present evidence on the issue of whether children were present at the school at the time of Jackson’s arrest. If court finds the failure to present the officer’s testimony wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel, directs Jackson receive a new trial on the issue of a statutory defense if the state so chooses.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: M.R. and L.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Cody Matthew Fritz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

James D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony theft.

Larry C. Perry, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony invasion of privacy.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?