ILNews

Opinions March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
LaPorte Community School Corporation v. Maria Rosales
46S04-1105-CT-284
Civil tort. Reverses and remands for a new trial on the issue of liability only. One of the jury instructions given by the trial court could have misled the jury about a key issue regarding liability in this child wrongful death case. Justice Sullivan dissents.

Randall L. Woodruff, Trustee, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on Behalf of Legacy Healthcare, Inc.d/b/a New Horizon Develop. Center v. In. Family & Social Serv. Admin., Office of Medicaid Policy & Planning
29S02-1110-PL-598
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court finding that FSSA breached its contract with respect to the remaining pre-decertification claims and awarded New Horizon $93,666.09. It also allowed FSSA an equal amount as a set-off for the receivership costs.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Indiana Tax Court  posted no opinions by IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. International Business Machines Corporation
49S00-1201-PL-15
Civil plenary. Holds that Indiana Code 34-29-2-1 – providing that the governor of the state of Indiana is “privileged from arrest on civil process, and from obeying any subpoena to testify” – operates to preclude a trial court from issuing an order to compel the governor’s deposition in a contract dispute brought by the state of Indiana against a contractor. Justice Sullivan concurs in result.

John Witt, HydroTech Corp, and Mark Shere v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., and Jack R. James
38S02-1110-CV-608
Civil. Affirms trial court order holding John Witt, HydroTech Corp. and attorney Mark Shere in contempt of court for violating the terms of a temporary restraining order. The court order was sufficiently clear and certain to unambiguously direct the cessation of all further activities by Witt, Shere, and Hydrotech at the site. Justices Rucker and Sullivan dissent.

Marion County Auditor, and McCord Investments, LLC v. Sawmill Creek, LLC a/k/a Saw Creek Investments, LLC
49S02-1106-CV-364
Civil. Reverses trial court decision to set aside the tax deed on grounds that the auditor’s effort to notify Sawmill Creek of the tax sale was constitutionally deficient for failing to meet the requirements of due process. The auditor satisfied the due process requirement articulated in Mullane, Dusenbery and Flowers. Justice Rucker dissents.     

Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana
55S01-1107-CR-444
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony stalking. Holds that the lag in time between the harassing calls in 2006 and the subsequent single call in 2008 didn’t foreclose the conviction for stalking, particularly since much of the break in time between the calls was due to Nicholson’s incarceration.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael J. Griffin v. State of Indiana
53A05-1106-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction but revises Griffin’s sentence to 45 years. The state produced sufficient evidence to negate Griffin’s claim that he was acting in sudden heat when he killed the victim, and the reckless homicide instruction was properly refused.

Kristine Bunch v. State of Indiana
16A05-1007-PC-439
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for a new trial. The fire victim toxicology evidence does constitute newly discovered evidence and the state’s failure to turn over a report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms testing of floor samples violates Brady. Judge Crone dissents.

Bill Musgrave v. Squaw Creek Coal Co. and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
49A05-1104-MI-164
Miscellaneous. Affirms order in favor of Squaw Creek Coal Co. and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources on SCCC’s petition for judicial review on an order issued by the Indiana Natural Resources Commission administrative law judge vacating the DNR’s decision to release certain portions of SCCC’s reclamation bond on its surface mining permit. The trial court did not err by refusing to dismiss SCCC’s petition even though it did not pay a filing fee and SCCC’s process and service was sufficient. The trial court was correct to conclude that Musgrave is not collaterally estopped from challenging the release of the bond on Permit S-008.

Jody Brewster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-CR-450
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

John W. Kimbrough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1106-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms four convictions of Class A felony child molesting. Reverses sentencing order and remands to the trial court to enter a sentence as outlined in the opinion. Judge Mathias concurs in part and dissents in part.


 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT