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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT