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

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