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

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