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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT