ILNews

Opinions March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Evelyn Garrard; Ronald Garrard v. Debra L. Teibel and Douglas Grimmer and Debra Lindsay
45A03-1111-PL-547
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgments in favor of Teibel, Grimmer and Lindsay, holding that Garrard had waived all issues on appeal and failed to show an issue of material fact existed. The court also warned Garrard about language in pleadings that disparaged other parties to the litigation and the bench.

KOA Properties, LLC v. Laura Matheison

48A04-1207-SC-365
Small claim. Affirms the small claims court did not abuse its discretion by appointing appellate counsel for Matheison and did not err in denying KOA’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The Court of Appeals ruled the notice of the claim clearly included KOA as a party defendant and found that although KOA was not served a separate notice of the initial claim, it was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform the business that a small claims action had been filed against it.

Cheryl L. Schlimpert v. Timothy M. Schlimpert (NFP)

71A03-1206-DR-297
Domestic relations. Dismisses, concluding wife did not file a timely appeal.

Clark Sales & Service, Inc. v. John D. Smith and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)

49A04-1208-PL-387
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands on interlocutory appeal a preliminary injunction granted to Clark’s based on terms of a non-disclosure agreement.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of George Lee Coon, Mark A. Coon v. Allen W. Coon, Donald L. Moster, Jr., and Beverly S. Moster (NFP)
70A01-1208-ES-384
Estate. Affirms summary judgment and concludes that evidence of a postnuptial agreement was properly admitted.

Davion Peterson v. Sandra Owen (NFP)
49A02-1207-PO-596
Protection order. Affirms Owen’s protection order.

Curtis Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1204-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 40-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Ivan Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1207-CR-334
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony intimidation and a count of Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance.

Oo Aka v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Andrew Abbott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1201-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property, but remands to the trial court for proceedings to recalculate pretrial detention credit for time served.

Gateway West Townhouse Association, Barry J. Stern and Judy C. Stern v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. SF Industrial Properties-Indianapolis, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1208-MI-680
Miscellaneous/zoning. Affirms trial court dismissal of a petition for judicial review of a zoning variance granted to SF Industrial.

Allen G. Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, robbery and confinement.

Jamie Farmer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A04-1208-CR-448
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Scott Rose v. J.Z. and J.Z. (Adoptive Parents) (NFP)

32A05-1207-AD-361
Adoption. Affirms trial court denial of motion to set aside adoption decree.

Benito S. Gamba, Hilda P. Gamba and Gamba Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. The Ross Group Inc./Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. The Ross Group Inc., Benito Gamba, Hilda Gamba, et al. (NFP)
45A03-1202-PL-92
Civil plenary. Reaffirms in rehearing prior ruling that the Gamba interests are liable for a construction-cost overage.

J.W.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1207-JV-373
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for what would have been a Class D felony conviction of criminal gang activity if committed by an adult.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeal issued no Indiana decisions by 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. 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