ILNews

Opinions March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tywan D. Griffin v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-774
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, ruling the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Griffin committed the charge.

George F. Evans, Jr. v. Peggy A. Evans
12A02-1008-DR-895
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s grant of motion to compel payment in favor of James C. Michael, personal representative for the estate of Peggy A. Evans, pursuant to an amended dissolution decree. States that Peggy’s counsel advised George’s counsel that his pension plan administrator had rejected the qualified domestic relations order (QRDO) from the court, as the QRDO must state that benefits to Peggy would terminate upon her death. Peggy died before she had received a single payment from the QRDO. Michael then filed a motion to compel payment as outlined in the QRDO, or an alternative payment. Judge Riley dissents in part.

Trust of William H. Riddle; Linda Goins v. Patricia Riddle
41A04-1007-TR-447
Trust. Affirms trial court’s ruling that Goins had breached her duties as trustee for William H. Riddle by paying for expenses not allowable under specific provisions of the trust. With respect to the cross-appeal, remands to trial court to determine reasonable trial and appellate attorney fees. Statute allows that if a beneficiary successfully maintains an action to compel a trustee to perform his duties, the beneficiary is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, which includes appellate attorney fees.

Estate of Nathaniel Kappel v. Margaret Kappel
32A01-1008-ES-462
Estate, supervised. Affirms Hendricks Superior Court’s order requiring the estate of Nathaniel Kappel to pay a survivor’s allowance to his widow, Margaret Kappel, stating Margaret’s demand was not untimely, as a surviving spouse is not required to file a demand for payment, and is therefore not subject to the nine-month time period prescribed by Indiana Code Section 29-1-14-1(d).

Sheila K. Granger v. State of Indiana
10A01-1002-CR-39
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of child molesting as Class A felonies, three counts of child molesting as Class C felonies and one count of Class D felony child solicitation. While some admitted evidence was not relevant to the case, other items collected from Granger’s house corroborated the testimony of witnesses, and provided sufficient evidence for a jury to base credibility findings. Finds the admission of the irrelevant evidence to be harmless. Reduces her 60-year executed sentence, citing Granger’s lack of a criminal record, her role in the community, and relative lack of substantial physical harm to the victims.

Jerry and Mary Kwolek v. Rodney and Jennifer Swickard
64A05-1006-PL-372
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s judgment in favor of Rodney and Jennifer Swickard, stating the trial court erred when it concluded the Swickards were entitled to park on an “ingress-egress” easement in front of Jerry and Mary Kwolek’s garage. An agreement between the couples does not state the Swickards were entitled to use the easement beyond ingress and egress. The Kwoleks later made improvements to the easement, which the trial court had ordered removed. But the appeals court dismissed that order, stating the improvements did not interfere with the Swickards’ ability to access their own property.

Leslie A. McCormick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1007-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

D.J. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1006-EX-683
Civil. Dismisses appeal of decision in favor of the city on D.J.’s claim for unemployment insurance benefits, citing noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Samuel D. Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1008-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony resisting law enforcement and Class C felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood.

James Whitaker, et al. v. Sandra Maskell, et al. (NFP)
60A04-1008-PL-463
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s award of attorney fees to Maskell and other defendants.

Gregory Proffitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1006-CR-357
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny motions for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B).

James A. Love, et al. v. Meyer & Najem Construction, LLC (NFP)
32A01-1006-CT-317
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Meyer & Najem Construction in a suit filed after James was injured.

Ro.C. v. Ry.C. (NFP)
32A01-1009-DR-435
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order denying mother’s request to relocate to New York with the parties’ children. Dismisses mother’s appeal regarding her motion to modify child support.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT