ILNews

Opinions May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Pickering v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC d/b/a Horseshoe Southern Indiana
31A01-1209-CT-429
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that an injury Charles Pickering sustained after passing beneath caution tape and falling on a snowy and icy parking garage surface could not be attributed to Horseshoe Casino, which had cordoned off the area.

C.B. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1207-JV-379
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court denial of a motion to consider probable cause even though C.B. clearly established lack of probable cause. The court held that in a case in which a juvenile presents evidence that tends to negate probable cause, a juvenile court must grant a motion to reconsider probable cause.

Dorita P. Lee and Brealon Miller v. Elizabeth Hamilton (NFP)
45A03-1211-SC-491
Small claim. Affirms granting of judgment in favor of Dorita Lee and Brealon Miller. Concludes the lower court did not err in awarding Lee and Miller zero damages.   

Christine and George Evan v. Trustgard Insurance Company, d/b/a Grange Insurance (NFP)
64A04-1210-CT-563
Civil tort. Dismisses the Evans’ appeal of denial of their motion to compel discovery responses in their action against Trustgard Insurance Co., doing business as Grange Insurance. Finds the Evans are not appealing a final judgment and did not properly perfect a discretionary interlocutory appeal. The COA rules it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the trial court’s denial.  

Francis Napier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1209-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms denial of Napier’s motion to suppress the evidence. Concludes that since the Indiana Gaming Commission officer’s actions in helping Napier’s girlfriend retrieve personal items from Napier’s truck did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, the COA does not reach Napier’s argument that the search was unjustified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Dionne Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-PC-787
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Stewart’s amended petition for post-conviction relief. Concludes Stewart waived appellate review of his claim that the trial court erred in permitting the state to belatedly amend the Information to include a habitual offender allegation. COA concludes that Stewart did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  

Kevin T. Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1210-CR-809
Criminal. Affirms Price’s convictions and sentence for Class D felony pointing a firearm and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. Finds the trial court did not err in excluding Price’s alibi witness and in instructing the jury. Also concludes Price has failed to carry his burden to show that his sentence is inappropriate.   

In the Guardianship of D.M.: W.G. v. B.P. (NFP)
39A01-1210-GU-463
Guardianship. Affirms termination of W.G.’s (grandfather) guardianship over D.M. (granddaughter). Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion either in terminating grandfather’s guardianship of D.M. or in awarding mother immediate custody of D.M.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT