ILNews

Opinions March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bay Colony Civic Corporation v. Pearl Gasper Trust and Bruce F. Waller
49A05-1207-PL-365
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling in favor of Gasper and Waller, holding that a public easement to a reservoir also grants access to the water and not just to the land adjacent to the water, and that a neighborhood association did not violate its bylaws by spending money to improve access to the lake for residents. Remands to the trial court to grant the association’s motion for partial summary judgment.

In the Matter of the Support of B.J.R.: B.J.R., by next friend, R.J.C. v. C.J.R., Sr.
49A02-1206-RS-454
Reciprocal support. Affirms court order reducing a father’s child support payment that had been ordered by a Pennsylvania court. The panel held that sufficient evidence was presented to establish that either the father’s circumstances had changed so substantially as to make continuing terms unreasonable, or that the order differs by more than 20 percent from what would be ordered under Indiana’s child support guidelines.

John Brewer v. Cathy Jo Bowman (NFP)
49A02-1208-CT-681
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s ruling that an automobile was a valid inter vivos gift to Bowman.

Town of Clarksville, Indiana v. Chris Conte and Mary Ann Conte (NFP)
10A05-1202-CT-105
Civil tort. Vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded with instructions. Ruled the trial court’s findings were not sufficient to support the judgment that the town had a duty, it breached that duty, the Contes’ injury was caused by the town’s breach, and the damages of $28,644.47 with post-judgment interest of 8 percent were appropriate.

In Re The Guardianship of J.M.: Christina M. Martin (Kibalko) v. William P. Hitch and Georgia L. Hitch (NFP)
82A04-1205-GU-272
Guardianship. Affirms the trial court’s denial of the mother’s petition to terminate the guardianship. Reverses and remands with instructions the trial court’s order that the mother reimburse the guardians for $1,000 paid to the guardian ad litem.  

 Mark A. Salisbury v. State of Indiana (NFP)

17A03-1209-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms the post-conviction court’s finding that Salisbury’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into because he had effective assistance of trial counsel.
 
Gregory Leech v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms convictions of trespass, a Class A misdemeanor; and battery, a Class B misdemeanor.
 
Martin Reyes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1206-PC-261
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Reyes’ request for post-conviction relief on the grounds his trial counsel was effective.  

Dustin James Mahler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1208-CR-369
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery, Class A misdemeanor. Ruled the incomplete jury instruction defining Class A misdemeanor battery did not result in fundamental error.

Darvin McCallister v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A05-1208-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of McCallister’s motion to set aside his guilty pleas for possession of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance, both Class D felonies.

Carlos Ulloa v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-463
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of dealing in cocaine, each as a Class A felony, and one count of dealing in cocaine, as a Class B felony. Finds the trial court did not err in denying Ulloa’s motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) when he was not brought to trial within 70 days of his pro se request for a speedy trial.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.L., minor child, and D.S., mother: D.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1206-JT-305
Termination of parental rights. Affirms juvenile court’s judgment terminating mother’s parental rights. Finds no error in the lower court’s conclusions that the conditions leading to D.L.’s removal are unlikely to be remedied and the termination of mother’s parental rights is in the minor’s best interests.

Michael Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1210-CR-840
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalence of 0.08 or more, a Class C misdemeanor.  

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions prior to IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT