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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT