ILNews

Opinions May 13, 2013

May 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph Matheny v. State of Indiana
49A04-1207-CR-347
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing to clarify that the previous holding – that the trial court’s refusal of Matheny’s tendered instruction constituted error in light of Santiago v. State and Albores v. State – does not conflict with those cases. The judges reaffirmed their original decision which affirmed the Class D felony auto theft conviction and found that although the trial court erred in refusing to give the instruction regarding the jury’s duty to conform the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent, the error was harmless.

First American Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, on Behalf of the Indiana Dept. of Insurance
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/may/05131301mgr.pdf  
49A04-1206-PL-326
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the commissioner’s motion to dismiss. Reverses the denial of First American’s verified petition for judicial review and declaratory relief against Robertson, and remands with instructions to grant the petition. The commissioner waived his claim regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies by waiting to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The commissioner’s failure to comply with the statutory deadline rendered his order void and the trial court erred by requiring a separate showing of prejudice.

David D. Kiely v. Kathryn Starnes-Kiely (NFP)
14A05-1208-DR-430
Domestic relation. Remands division of marital estate property to the trial court for clarification.

Vickie Fenoglio as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Fenoglio v. Boguslaw Gluszak, M.D. and Steve Robertson, Commissioner of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. and Boguslaw Gluszak, M.D. (NFP)
84A01-1211-PL-513
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Boguslaw Gluszak M.D. on a proposed medical malpractice complaint.

Stephen Harriman and Elena Ivanova v. Smith Brothers Ultimate Builders, Inc. (NFP)
41A01-1210-SC-460
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Smith Brothers on a breach of contract claim.

Paul Komyatti, Jr. v. The Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County and Citizens Energy Group (NFP)
49A04-1209-CT-445
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the city and Citizens Energy on Komyatti’s lawsuit after he hit a pothole while on his bicycle and was injured.

Chris Griner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT