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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT