ILNews

Opinions - June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Indiana Supreme Court

Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana
49S02-0908-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms Whatley’s conviction of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine because he was arrested within 1,000 feet of a church that provided services to youth on a regular basis. A jury could properly find that the nearby church was a “youth program center” because it provided a building or structure that on a regular basis offered recreational, social, or other programs or services for persons less than 18 years of age. Justices Boehm and Rucker dissent.

Indiana Tax Court
Lawrence and Glenda Pachniak v. Marshall County Assessor (NFP)
49T10-0904-TA-18
Tax. Affirms the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination regarding the Pachniak’s 2006 real property assessment.

Today’s opinions:
Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals

J.M. v. M.A., et al.
20A04-0911-CV-640
Civil. Reverses and remands decision of trial court with instructions trial court vacate its order adjudicating J.M. as the legal father of W.H. and ordering him to pay child support. Additionally, because the state has conceded that J.M. is not W.H.‘s biological father, the trial court must set aside the paternity affidavit.
 
Fifth Third Bank v. Peoples National Bank

49A02-0908-CV-753
Civil. Reverses and remands with instructions to determine the appropriate amount of sanctions to be assessed against Fifth Third Bank. The issue raised was whether Fifth Third waived its right to enforce its security interest with respect to its indebted depositor’s checking account and proceeds held therein.
 
American Heritage Banco Inc. v. Arthur W. Cranston and Joanne E. Cranston, et al.
76A04-0907-CV-384
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s judgment in favor of Arthur W. and Joanne E. Cranston on American Heritage Banco Inc.’s mortgage foreclosure claim and claim for damages on a promissory note against the Cranstons. The trial court had denied the bank’s claims for relief and instead entered judgment in favor of the Cranstons on the Cranstons’ affirmative defense and counterclaim for constructive fraud against AHB. The trial court also awarded treble damages and attorney fees to the Cranstons pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act.

Ben Erwin and Shona Erwin as parents, natural guardians, and next-of-friend of their minor child, D.E. v. Brenda Roe
16A01-0906-CV-312
Civil. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. Concludes (1) trial court was within its discretion to deny the Erwins’ extension of time; (2) Roe is not liable for treble damages with respect to the federal statute; however, knowledge is not a requirement for violation of Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act; (3) Roe was negligent per se with respect to state tort law; and (4) there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Roe was provided with a reasonable amount of time after she received notice lead paint would need to be removed from the house she rented to the Erwins before they broke their lease.

Adoption of D.C.; J.C. v. J.C. and A.C.

49A02-0909-CV-862
Civil. Affirms order of trial court that grants the petition of D.C.’s stepfather J.C. and his wife A.C. to adopt D.C. D.C., born May 5, 1998, has lived with stepfather since his birth. D.C.’s mother died in 2005 and stepfather has since remarried. Among the issues raised by D.C.’s biological father, appellant J.C., was whether his parental rights may not be terminated absent the procedural protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Sitka Tribe of Alaska was permitted to intervene regarding the potential application of the ICWA.
 
Value World Inc. of Indiana v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and C.C.

93A02-1001-EX-61
Civil. Affirms determination of the Unemployment Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that concludes Value World did not have good cause for failing to attend an administrative appeal hearing.

Ebrahima Diallo v. State of Indiana
49A05-0910-CR-614
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class C felony forgery.
 
Indiana Department of Correction v. Douglas Haley
56A03-0911-CR-553
Criminal. Reverses denial of DOC’s motion to correct error, which challenged the trial court’s order granting Haley’s petition for educational credit time.
 
Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1001-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.
 
Vicki Sue Maze v. Robert L. Davenport, et al. (NFP)
50A03-0911-CV-531
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Maze’s claim for damages for breach of contract. Remands as to Maze’s unjust enrichment claim.
 
Joseph B. Williams AKA Lonnie Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-0906-CV-334
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus, after revocation of parole.

Bruce W. Guess v. State of Indiana (NFP)

64A03-0910-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a guilty plea to murder and robbery as a Class B felony.
 
Jerome Ford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1067
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery, a Class A misdemeanor.
 
Terry Ray Isaacs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A01-0907-PC-328
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Andrew Tesch v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
22A01-1001-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.
 
Anthony L. Beery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1002-CR-108
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding of violation of probation and probation revocation.
 
Leeland Runkel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A04-0909-PC-546
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
James Watkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1058
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony.
 
Wolf Lake Pub Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-0910-EX-957
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Unemployment Insurance Review Board dismissing Wolf Lake Pub’s appeal for failure to appear at a hearing.
 
Copenhaver Construction Consultants LLC, et al. v. Lincoln Bank (NFP)
32A01-0909-CV-476
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lincoln Bank and denial of appellants’ counter-motion for partial summary judgment.

Gary Parsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A05-0911-CR-650
Criminal. Reverses and remands sentence following a guilty plea to attempted aggravated battery, a Class B felony.

Mark Vickery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to remove sexually violent predator status.
 
Rickey D. Miller and Jennifer Miller v. Art Duncan, M.D. (NFP)
22A01-0907-CV-316
Civil. Affirms judgment entered on medical malpractice action after jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Duncan.
 
Steven T. Hutson Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A05-1002-CR-56
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation.
 
Tara L. Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1002-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of cocaine, fraud, and theft as Class D felonies.
 
J.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-JV-1112
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of J.D. as a juvenile delinquent after the juvenile court found he committed acts that would be Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

Matthew Ferry v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
79A04-0910-CR-606
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony; possession of marijuana while having a prior conviction, a Class D felony, and with being a habitual substance offender.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at 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