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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT