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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT