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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT