Opinions May 13, 2013

May 13, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph Matheny v. State of Indiana
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  
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?