ILNews

Opinions March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Indiana Tax Court issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Charlie White, et. al. v. Indiana Democratic Party, through its Chairman , Daniel J. Parker
49S00-1202-MI-73
Miscellaneous. Reverses a decision by Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg, which found that Charlie White was not eligible to take office following the November 2010 election because he had improperly registered to vote at an address where he was not living. Justice Brent Dickson concurred in result, but wrote separately to say that he agreed with the election contest being dismissed because he sees the Legislature’s attempt to impose additional eligibility qualifications on candidates as unconstitutional and not a basis to contest someone’s eligibility for office.

Michael R. Kole, Joseph L. Weingarten, and Glenn J. Brown, et al. v. Scott Faultless, Daniel Henke, Eileen Pritchard, Stuart Easley, et al.
94S00-1112-CQ-692
Certifiable question. Responding to a certifiable question from Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the Supreme Court held that Indiana’s Government Modernization Act does allow a town to reorganize as a second class city wherein a city council elected at large then elects a mayor. If voters approve of referendums to that effect in November, the reorganization of the town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township may proceed as proposed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Canon Harper v. State of Indiana
10A01-1012-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms convictions for dealing in cocaine, possession of cocaine, dealing in a narcotic drug, and possession of a narcotic drug, all Class A felonies; two counts of resisting law enforcement, battery of a law enforcement officer, and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors; and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony. Holds that even though Harper did not possess the contraband found in a search of a purse and hotel room, the fact that the purse was in his car and the hotel room was rented in his name was sufficient to establish constructive possession.

Ayanna Wright and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 62, Local 4009, AFL-CIO v. City of Gary, Indiana
45A04-1107-PL-362
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s determination that an arbitrator in a collective bargaining agreement dispute exceeded his powers when he determined that Wright should be placed into another job, despite a city ordinance that stated the new position was not covered by the CBA.

Irmina Gradus-Pizlo, M.D., and Select Specialty Hospital Indianapolis, Inc. v. Donald Acton
49A02-1106-CT-503
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s denial of motion for summary judgment in favor of Acton, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to the commencement of the statute of limitations for Acton’s proposed medical malpractice complaint.

Brad A. Altevogt, et al. v. Dennis L. Brand, et al.
44A03-1106-MI-237
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding the trial court did not err in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim of title of the disputed land by public dedication because the plat did not dedicate the Indian Trail to the public, but instead indicated that the Indian Trail was for the use of the lot owners and their guests. The trial court also properly concluded that the plaintiffs had not established all of the elements of adverse possession.

T.H. b/n/f Sonja Lynetter (Walls) Fitzgerald v. Troy Hutchison (NFP)
82A01-1109-JP-438
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s order suspending parenting time for and issuing protective order against father. Affirms court’s finding that mother was in contempt.

Susan R. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A05-1103-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder.

Charles R. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
78A04-1110-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance.

Ernest Wireman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1008-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for murder, Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony arson.

Odonis D. Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony robbery.

Shawn McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1110-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

KSM, LLC v. Lighthouse Storage, LLC, Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., Inc., and Kevin and Stephen Corp. (NFP)
02A03-1106-PL-232
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Lighthouse Storage, holding court did not abuse its discretion in ordering rescission of the purchase contract. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lawyers Title on KSM’s negligent misrepresentation claim and grant of summary judgment in favor of a KSM manager on Lighthouse’s actual fraud claim. Remands for further proceedings.

John Mitchem v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Tyson Keplinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1104-PC-359
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT