ILNews

Opinions June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Randy Edward Johnson v. State of Indiana
53S01-1106-CR-335
Criminal. Johnson failed to establish that his trial counsel was burdened by a conflict of interest sufficient to trigger the Sixth Amendment duty of inquiry under Holloway or Sullivan. Under similar circumstances, though, a judge should do more than simply pass a complaint by a defendant to the public defender’s office.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donna Gibson v. G. David Bojrab, M.D., et al.
02A05-1008-CT-497
Civil tort. Affirms judgment in favor of Dr. Bojrab and Pain Management Associates PC on Gibson’s medical malpractice claim. To the extent the issue was properly preserved, Gibson didn’t establish that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the medical review panel’s conclusion in an unrelated case against Bojrab.

Cynthia Perdue v. Greater Lafayette Health Services d/b/a Home Hospital
79A05-1011-CT-687
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Home Hospital on Perdue’s complaint alleging negligence and seeking damages for bodily injuries. The trial court erred when it concluded her complaint is barred by a statute of repose. Remands for further proceedings.

Guideone Insurance Co., as Subrogee of Andrew Alexander and Michael Schafstall v. U.S. Water Systems, Inc., and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
49A05-1009-CT-569
Civil tort. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to Lowe’s on the scope of liablity. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Guideone on the issue of liability because an issue of material fact remains. Reverses grant of U.S. Water’s motion to dismiss because the flood damage that resulted from the apparent failure of the water system resulted in physical damage to “other property,” a claim under which Guideone could potentially recover. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Baker dissents in part.

Michael K. Arthur v. State of Indiana
28A01-1008-CR-489
Criminal. Reverses order that denied Arthur eligibility for credit time while placed on home detention in a community corrections program. A reasonable construction of the statute, as amended and consistent with its purpose, finds that Arthur may earn credit time during his placement on home detention. Affirms modification of Arthur’s sentence.

Evelyn Garrard, by and through her Attorney-in-fact, Ronald D. Garrard v. Debra L. Teibel and Douglas Grimmer, and Debra Lindsay
45A04-1003-PL-229
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Evelyn Garrard’s children, Debra Teibel and Douglas Grimmer, following their counterclaim and third-party complaint in Robert Garrard’s action against them for damages, seeking invalidation of Garrard’s power of attorney over Evelyn. The appellate court is unable to discern Garrard’s basis for appeal.

Charles Price v. Delmar Kuchaes

45A04-1007-CT-467
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Kuchaes on the theory of judicial estoppel for Price’s failure to disclose this malpractice action in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. Price has standing to pursue his legal malpractice action. Affirms denial of summary judgment as to damages to Price. Issues of material fact remain such that Price isn’t entitled to summary judgment as to Kuchaes’ liability for malpractice. Remands for further proceedings.

Terri L. Mozingo v. Timothy Pursifull (NFP)
24A04-1011-DR-677
Domestic relation. Reverses child support entered in favor of Pursifull and remands with instructions.

Chad Byrd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1101-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea but mentally ill to murder.

Anthony Welkie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1006-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

Tana Dulin v. Sun Mortgage Co., LLC a/k/a Sun Mortgage, LLC, and Wendy Creed (NFP)
29A04-1008-PL-482
Civil plenary. Affirms award of damages to Dulin in her successful suit against Sun Mortgage and Creed.

Troy L. McMurtry v. Sabrina L. McMurtry (NFP)
82A01-1008-DR-485
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting Sabrina McMurtry’s petition to modify the pre-existing parenting time schedule, calculating father’s child support obligation, and denying Troy McMurtry’s request for attorney fees.

Brandon Gifford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1010-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms finding of being a habitual substance offender.

Thomas A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A04-1008-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms Smith’s sentence following a guilty plea to murder, but reverses the imposition of a $10,000 fine. Reverses sentence following a finding of Smith being in contempt of court. Remands for further proceedings.

Jeffrey Randolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1010-CR-1104
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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