ILNews

Opinions March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Estate of Nicholas D. Rice, deceased, by Rick D. Rice and Diane J. Waldrop, co-personal representatives v. Correctional Medical Services, et al.
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/march/GK0PUU3D.pdf
09-2804, 10-2389
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judges Robert L. Miller Jr. and Rudy Lozano.
Civil. In No. 09-2804, affirms in part and reverse in part the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. A material dispute of fact precludes summary judgment on one of the estate’s Section 1983 claims. In No. 10-2389, reverses the District Court’s decision to dismiss the state claims on the basis of collateral estoppel. Remands both cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court
Rebecca D. Kays v. State of Indiana
42S05-1107-CR-441
Criminal. Remands to determine Kays’ ability to pay restitution and a determination of her manner of payment. Finds nothing in 42 U.S.C. Section 407(a) to prohibit a trial court from considering a defendant’s Social Security income when determining the “amount the person can or will be able to pay” in restitution pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-2-2.3(a)(5).

Henry L. Howard, et al. v. United States
94S00-1106-CQ-333
Certified question. Under Indiana law, railbanking and interim trail use pursuant to 16 U.S.C. Section 1274(d) are not uses within the scope of the easements, and railbanking with interim trail use does not constitute a permissible shifting public use.

Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, N.A.
01S04-1107-PL-438
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment on fraud and treble-damages claims because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Klinker acted with the requisite criminal intent. Remands for further proceedings.

Hannah Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company
89S05-1109-CT-531
Civil tort. Holds that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured under Indiana Code 27-7-5-4(b) because the amount actually paid to Hannah Lakes was less than the per-person limit of liability of the under-insurance endorsement. Remands for further proceedings.

Jerrell D. White v. State of Indiana
15S01-1109-CR-545
Criminal. Holds, under the circumstances of this case, that the defendant did not preserve the issue of whether the trial court properly allowed the habitual offender filing. Also holds that the authenticated and certified evidence was sufficient to uphold the jury’s determination that the defendant had two unrelated adult felony convictions. Justice Sullivan dissents, believing the Court of Appeals opinion to be correct.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Cathy Benko and Gerald Ewing, as Executors of the Estate of Laverna Ewing, Deceased
75A04-1108-CT-440
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Auto-Owners’ motion to strike and summary judgment for Benko and Ewing in their underinsured motorist claim. Concludes that the plain language of the provision would lead an ordinary policyholder to believe that they were required to bring a bodily injury claim against the alleged tortfeasor within the applicable statute of limitations, which occurred in this case. Additionally, if the insurance company intended a different interpretation, it should have stated so in plain English so that their policyholders understand what is necessary to protect their interests and collect their benefits under the policy.

Luke Keys Carson v. State of Indiana
29A04-1106-CR-278
Criminal. Affirms convictions as guilty but mentally ill of two counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon, burglary, and resisting law enforcement. The evidence of Carson’s demeanor during and after the crime supports the determination that he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of actions at the time of the crimes and therefore was guilty but mentally ill. There is also sufficient evidence to support the burglary conviction.

Curtis A. Bethea v. State of Indiana
18A05-1107-PC-416
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief. Based on Farmer v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), and Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), appellate counsel could have challenged the trial court’s use of one of the victim’s injuries as an aggravating factor because that was an element of the burglary charge that was dismissed pursuant to Bethea’s plea agreement. Concludes that Farmer and Roney misapplied the precedents on which they relied, and declines to follow those cases. Bethea’s remaining arguments concern minor mischaracterizations in the trial court’s findings which are not significant enough in light of the valid findings to warrant a downward revision. Judge May concurs in result; Judge Brown dissents.

Mitchell Preston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1108-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms order Preston serve seven years of previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Jonathan R. Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1108-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Kevin Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1107-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms conviction following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine after trial court denied request to withdraw plea.  

James N. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1103-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class D felony receiving stolen property.  

B.M. v. M.M. and M.R.M., b/n/f M.M. (NFP)
12A02-1107-JP-722
Juvenile. Affirms order awarding custody to father. Father is not entitled to appellate attorney fees.

Clarence A. Martin, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1008-PC-497
Post conviction. Dismisses appeal of denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Thomas Eaton, et al. v. City of Gary, et al. (NFP)
45A04-1106-MI-312
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying Eaton and other appellants’ motion to correct error.

Rochelle M. Gibler v. Discover Bank (NFP)
71A05-1109-CC-500
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Discover Bank upon its breach of contract claim.

R.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and M.B. (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-656
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Malinda Diaz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-CR-821
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Earl R. England and Mary L. England v. Rob E. Hurford and Jennifer M. Hurford (NFP)
50A04-1106-PL-297
Civil. Affirms order granting a preliminary injunction to the Hurfords.

William Singleton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1106-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted voluntary manslaughter and remands with instructions to vacate the Class B felony aggravated battery conviction and sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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