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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT