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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT