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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  2. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  3. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  4. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  5. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

ADVERTISEMENT