ILNews

Opinions March 7, 2012

March 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Angela C. Garrett v. State of Indiana
32A05-1105-CR-239
Criminal. Reverses Class A felony conviction of dealing methamphetamine, finding that the trial court should have instructed the jury on a lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine. Remands for a new trial.

Ronald E. Izynski and Linda Izynski, et al. v. Chicago Title Insurance Company
45A04-1006-PL-277
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s judgment in favor of Chicago Title, remanding for the court to determine whether the Izynskis might have an action for negligent misrepresentation against Chicago Title regarding a real estate easement dispute, and if so whether the elements of that tort are satisfied and to what extent they sustained damages.

Antwain D. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1107-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement with a vehicle, finding the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.  

Clinton E. Sams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1108-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance and trial court’s finding that defendant is a habitual offender.

Deer Park Management v. Giovanni Zanovello (NFP)
53A01-1104-SC-161
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of tenant Giovanni Zanovello, as Deer Park Management did not provide him with timely notice in a move-out letter. Judge Carr Darden dissents, finding the move-out letter was timely and he would reverse the trial court’s decision.
 
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., J.B., & T.B.; Y.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1104-JT-397
Parental rights termination. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights to two children, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the judgment.

Marquis T. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-441
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, finding sufficient evidence to support the determination that defendant knowingly fled from authorities.
 

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT