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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT