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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT