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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT