ILNews

Opinions May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline May 18:

Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph Lineman, et al.
27S02-1006-CV-331
Civil. On transfer, affirms summary judgment in favor of the golfer, Joseph E. Lineman, and the Marion Elks Country Club Lodge #195. Reverses summary judgment granted to Whitey's 31 Club, Inc. and to the estate of the grandfather, Jerry A. Jones. Holds that the grandfather was responsible for exercising reasonable care in the supervision of the plaintiff, who was injured when she was left unsupervised on a golf cart. States that undisputed facts shown in the materials designated on summary judgment fail to conclusively establish a lack of duty on the part of Whitey's or the absence of a breach of duty or proximate cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James S. Tracy v. Steve Morell, et al.
59A01-1009-PL-488
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s ruling that James Tracy failed to meet his burden of proof on his fraud claim in the sale of a tractor. Reverses court’s ruling that Tracy owed a balance on the promissory note, stating the contract for sale of the tractor is because there was a mutual mistake of fact between the parties and the contract violates public policy. Holds that Tracy is entitled to the contract for sale of the tractor and to a money judgment in the amount he has paid on the note together with interest.

Tameka Caldwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-751
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony forgery, one count of Class D felony perjury, and two counts of Class D felony auto theft.

Mark Kramer, et al. v. Kramer Furniture and Cabinet Makers, Inc., et al. (NFP)
71A04-1008-PL-599
Civil plenary. Affirms entry of judgment in favor of Kramer Furniture and Cabinet Makers on Kramer Furniture’s complaint on account, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on the Kramers’ counterclaim, and on the Kramers’ third-party complaint against Thomas Kramer.

Nathaniel Dawn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1136
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

A.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1010-JV-668
Juvenile. Affirms admission of contraband evidence. A.B. was not in custody when during a pat-down search police the found the contraband evidence, meaning A.B. was not entitled to a Miranda warning.

Carl C. Tucker v.State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1010-CR-779
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Affirms aggregate sentence of eight years.

Robert A. Nelson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A02-1012-CR-1291
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony disarming a law enforcement officer.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT