Opinions March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012
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
Kristine A. and Larry G. Dawson v. Fifth Third Bank
Civil plenary. Affirms order denying the Dawsons’ motion for summary judgment and granting Fifth Third Bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment on its claim for replevin. When Magish, who sold a motorcycle to the Dawsons, defaulted on his loan from Fifth Third, the bank as the secured party had the right to take possession of the motorcycle. The Dawsons’ interest in the motorcycle as its purchasers is not superior to the bank’s perfected security interest.   

D.C. v. J.A.C.
Domestic relation. Reverses order modifying custody in favor of the ex-husband and preventing mother from relocating with their minor child. Father is not entitled to appellate attorney fees, and relocation alone cannot be used as a reason to support custody modification.

Clark County Drainage Board and Clark County Board of Commissioners v. Robert Isgrigg
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects. Finds neither of Isgrigg’s assertions on rehearing are meritorious.

Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate Boss’ convictions and sentences for harboring a non-immunized dog as Class B misdemeanors and enter a determination that she committed harboring a non-immunized dog as Class C infractions. Affirms convictions of six counts of Class A misdemeanor failure to restrain a dog and sentence.

Steinrock Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc. v. James S. McCulloch, PNC Bank, N.A.
Civil collection. Affirms the trial court’s determination that Steinrock Roofing breached the contract and affirms award of damages to McCulloch in a dispute over payment for work completed. Substantial evidence was presented establishing the contractor’s work was deficient. The trial court properly concluded that the contractor had waived any claim to reduce the damage under the Home Improvement Warranties statute.

Lewis J. Richardson and Laurel Richardson v. Board of Commissioners of Owen County
Civil plenary. Affirms finding that the Richardsons lacked standing as an aggrieved party to remonstrate against the vacation of a roadway leading to a cemetery. The Richardsons are not abutting landowners to the vacated roadway and have failed to demonstrate that they have sustained an injury that is unique or special to them.

Imperial Insurance Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. v. James Costello
Small claim. Reverses order granting judgment in favor of Costello on Imperial Insurance’s claims for breach of contract. Although Imperial provided a contract to Costello that it concedes did not satisfy requirements of the Indiana Home Improvement Contracts Act, that non-compliance did not automatically render the contract void. Concludes that the contract is enforceable and should not be voided. Remands with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Imperial for $669.86 and to hold a hearing to determine contractual interest due and if attorney fees or other costs are warranted.

Bilsland, LLC, LPM Investments, LLC, Phillip D. Mervis, Louis Mervis, Henry Bilsland, Justin Bilsland, and Biosafe Engineering, LLC v. Bradley D. Crain and Richard J. Redpath (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of an Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(8) motion by Crain and Redpath to dismiss the appellants’ claim.

Delmar J. Kent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

In Re the Paternity of: B.H. by next friend: B.C. (Father) v. D.H. (Mother) (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s requests to place B.H. in a different school district and to grant him joint physical and/or legal custody.

Andrew Abbott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor trespass.

State of Indiana, Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission v. Gary Murphy and Lake County Treasurer (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict of $332,172 in damages to Murphy and the Lake County Treasurer for multiple easements placed on Murphy’s property by the development commission.

J.R.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms commitment to the Department of Correction.

Vicky L. Tisdial v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses denial of petition requesting expungement of arrest record.

Derrick L. Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Aaron Isby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of Isby’s motions to compel his original trial counsel to produce all documents relating to his 1992 trial and for copies of his preliminary hearing transcript and the transcripts of three depositions taken leading up to his 1992 trial.

Gerald McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor animal cruelty.

Rondell Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms three convictions of Class C felony child molesting.

K.J. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.N.V.A.H. (NFP)
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

DeCarlos J. Freeman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of resisting law enforcement – one as a Class D felony and one as a Class A misdemeanor – following a guilty plea.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well