ILNews

Opinions March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maria Upham, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Rep. of the Estate of Wilbur A. Upham, Deceased v. Morgan County Hospital, Richard J. Eisenhut, M.D., Unity Physicians, Kendrick Family Practice, et al.
55A01-1202-CT-53
Civil tort/malpractice. Affirms jury verdict in favor of the hospital, holding that Upham’s counsel failed to request an admonishment and therefore waived the argument that the court should have declared a mistrial because of a prospective juror’s comments that plaintiff’s counsel was motivated by money. There was no abuse of discretion in jury instructions or in the court’s limiting of discovery.  

Ronald G. Arnold and B. Candi Arnold v. Allen Robert Linnemeier and Kathy Sue Linnemeier (NFP)

53A04-1207-PL-368
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Linnemeiers which granted them an easement by prior use and an irrevocable license across the Arnolds’ land for purposes of entering and exiting.

Jesse R. Luckey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1208-CR-399
Criminal. Reverses order revoking Luckey’s probation in two underlying cases arising from his convictions for possession of a controlled substance as a Class D felony, possession of marijuana as a Class D felony and possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor. Ruled although the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find probable cause that Luckey had committed the new offenses, it was insufficient to establish the commission of such crimes by preponderance of the evidence.

Aaron Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-546
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. Found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence obtained incident to Brown’s arrest.

Alejandro Gomez-Aviles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-728
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of child molesting, each as a Class A felony; two counts of child molesting, each as a Class C felony; and four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, each as a Class C felony. Found corpus delicti had been established so the admission of Gomez-Aviles videotaped confession did not constitute a fundamental error. Also ruled Gomez-Aviles did not carry his burden of demonstrating prosecutorial misconduct.

Rev. Carl Z. Liggins and The Board of Trustees of Mt. Olive Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v. William Bagley, Raymond Gaines, Gregg Merriweather, Stevie Bonds, Curtis Godfre, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1203-CT-184
Civil tort.  Reverses trial court’s order directing Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church to hold a general meeting to consider the retention of Rev. Liggins. Found the trustees did not fail to follow the procedures set out in the bylaws concerning the renewal or extension of the pastor’s contract because the bylaws did not give a procedure for how to handle a contract renewal or extension.

Jaime A. Herrera v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A05-1208-PC-440
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Harrera’s petition for post-conviction relief. Ruled that Herrera’s proposed sentencing challenge was meritless and, therefore, he did not demonstrate his appellate counsel was ineffective.

Mark Kevin Liston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1207-CR-385
Criminal. Dismisses Liston’s appeal of the trial judge’s order rescinding the referee’s order granting his petition for post-conviction relief. Liston did not request the trial court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal and did not request the Court of Appeals to accept jurisdiction.

Sherry L. Pruitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

58A01-1206-CR-275
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Pruitt’s probation and the order that she serve incarcerated the three years remaining on her sentences. Remands for the court to correct a clerical error and enter a modified abstract of judgment that lists both cause numbers under which the revocation was adjudicated.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT