ILNews

Opinions March 29, 2012

March 29, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ronyai Thompson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1106-CR-323
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Thompson’s motion to dismiss the charges against him. The court did not err when it granted the state’s peremptory challenges as to the two African-American members of the venire. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer Thompson intended to exercise control over the cocaine.

Mary E. Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel
49A04-1011-CT-704
Civil tort. Concludes that the very duty doctrine was not abrogated by the Indiana Tort Claim Act. In the new trial on the issue of allocation of fault, the trial court should instruct the jury on the very duty doctrine. Reverses and remands for further proceedings.

Brent Myers v. Jarod Coats
49A04-1104-PL-208
Civil plenary. Coats had a liberty interest in not erroneously being labeled as a sex offender, so the trial court did not err in granting his motion for partial summary judgment and denying Myers’ cross-motion for summary judgment as to this issue. The trial court did not err in concluding that Coats was not afforded due process. Finds Coats has not carried his burden to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact establishing that Myers personally deprived Coats of a liberty interest and failed to afford him sufficient process, so summary judgment for Myers should have been granted on this issue.  

Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana
91A05-1108-CR-389
Criminal. Dismisses Crider’s appeal of his sentence of three years for Class D felony theft, enhanced by three years based on his status as a habitual offender. Crider waived his right to challenge his sentence as erroneous. Judge Riley dissents.

In the Matter of the Paternity of S.C.; K.C. v. C.C. and B.H.
30A01-1107-JP-322
Juvenile. Affirms the grant of B.H.’s verified petition for relief from judgment for fraud upon the court. Mother failed to establish a prima facie error in the order to set aside the paternity order.  Judge Riley dissents.

Ziese & Sons Excavating, Inc. v. Boyer Construction Corp. and Boyer Construction Group Corp.
45A03-1104-PL-180
Civil plenary. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Boyer Construction Group as Ziese presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Boyer Construction Group and Boyer Construction Corp. are alter egos and whether Boyer Construction Group is Boyer Construction Corp.’s successor. Remands for further proceedings to determine whether the Group’s corporate veil should be pierced and whether the fraudulent sale of assets or mere continuation exceptions apply.

Buck Gleason v. State of Indiana
48A02-1106-CR-630
Criminal. Revises Gleason’s sentence from 11 years to six years following his convictions of battery, criminal recklessness and failure to stop after an accident that resulted in injury. The evidence supports the convictions, but the sentence imposed was inappropriate based on the nature of the offenses and Gleason’s character. Remands with instructions.

East Porter County School Corp. v. Gough, Inc., and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America
64A04-1109-PL-471
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Gough and Travelers and against the school corporation. Based upon the record and under the circumstances presented in this case, it is evident that there was not a meeting of the minds regarding the bid amount and thus that the school did not acquire the right to enforce Gough’s erroneous or mistaken bid. Agrees that Travelers should be released from its bid bond because its principal does not have any liability on the underlying contract.

Shamir Chappell v. State of Indiana
89A01-1106-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms the state presented sufficient evidence to support the Class A felony burglary conviction and the trial court did not err in imposing an aggregate sentence of 70 years. But Chappell’s convictions of Class A felony burglary and Class B felony burglary constitute double jeopardy. Remands with instructions.

Michael Woodson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1106-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Woodson’s encounter with police did not rise to the level of a Terry stop for which reasonable suspicion is required, but once the officer smelled alcohol on Woodson and noticed his impaired speech, it evolved into a Terry stop.

DeLage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Community Mental Health Center, Inc.
15A05-1107-CC-366
Civil collection. Reverses denial of DeLage Landen’s motion for summary judgment on a breach of contract complaint against Community Mental Health Center. The trial court abused its discretion in considering Community’s late-filed response on summary judgment and that, considering only the properly designated evidence, summary judgment should be granted to DeLage.

Danny R. Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1108-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class B felony incest.

Gerald C. Vickers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1109-PC-510
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Euranus Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-PC-195
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Frank R. Keeton v. Linda K. Keeton (NFP)
67A01-1108-DR-00344
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution order where the trial court assigned a value of $1.2 million to the parties’ commercial real estate.

Angela D. Driskell, Bob R. Dehaven, and Blonnie V. Dehaven v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (NFP)
82A01-1108-PL-358
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal involving property that was the subject of a mechanic’s lien.

Paul Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-772
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Kimberly A. Pieper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1110-CR-482
Criminal. Dismisses challenge of Pieper’s habitual substance offender adjudication.

Dejuan Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Standard Coating Service, Inc. v. Walsh Construction Co. (NFP)
49A02-1109-CT-922
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment on Standard’s claims for breach of contract and for damages as a third-party beneficiary to a contract between Walsh and the city of Indianapolis.

Jesse Michael Villareal, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1107-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and sentence for battery.


 

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