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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT