ILNews

Opinions March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Meriwether v. State of Indiana
49A02-1208-CR-676
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class D felony possession of paraphernalia. The trial court did not commit fundamental error when it admitted Meriwether’s statement into evidence because he was not in custody when he made it.
 
State Farm Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Young and Mary E. Young, Joel P. Genth and Philip K. Genth, INGENIX
92A05-1205-CT-258
Civil tort. Affirms order reducing the subrogation lien that State Farm Insurance Co. held against Thomas and Mary Young. To allow State Farm to recover the full value of its subrogation lien under a policy taken out by the Youngs, when State Farm did not pay the full value of the Youngs’ claim under a policy taken out by the Genths, would unjustly enrich State Farm.

Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana

03A04-1205-CR-283
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery and finding Bryant is a habitual offender. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence, the evidence supports his conviction and his sentence is appropriate.

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (NFP)
93A02-1205-EX-436
Agency action. Affirms denial of NIPSCO Industrial Group's petition for reconsideration regarding the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s final order that set the allocation method for NIPSCO’s Environmental Cost Recovery Mechanism and Environmental Expense Recovery Mechanism factors for a Qualified Pollution Control Property under construction.

Joshua Gaunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1204-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms four-year sentence for Class C felony corrupt business influence.

D.P. v. M.Y. (NFP)
71A03-1209-JP-384
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father’s petition to modify custody.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.C., M.H., A.J., D.J., & J.J. (Minor Children), and M.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A05-1207-JT-342
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

MJB Lawn Care v. Tower Cleaning Systems, Inc. (NFP)
64A04-1207-CT-341
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Tower Cleaning Systems on its request for indemnification pursuant to its contract with MJB Lawn Care.

Mahoganee K. Edmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery, Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon and Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Kentuckiana Trench Shoring, LLC v. National Water Service, LLC (NFP)
59A05-1206-PL-315
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment in favor of National Water Service for breach of contract.

Kimberly R. Goff (Miller) v. Larry Goff (NFP)
49A04-1205-DR-277
Domestic relation. Affirms order regarding the amount Kimberly Goff Miller was due from her ex-husband as part of their 1997 divorce order.

Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus v. The City of Hammond (NFP)
45A03-1206-PL-287
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the city of Hammond regarding ordinances regulating firearms.

Tyrone Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-PC-11
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher Whirl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1206-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part the three robbery convictions and remands with instructions to vacate two of them and resentence Whirl on one count of robbery. Also orders the trial court to enter judgments of conviction and sentences on Class B criminal confinement felonies.

State of Indiana v. Mark M. Hairston (NFP)

02A04-1209-PC-476
Post conviction. Reverses vacation of habitual offender finding.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.B., Minor Child, and Her Mother, A.B.: A.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

79A02-1209-JT-764
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT