ILNews

Opinions May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lydia Lanni v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al.
49A05-1208-CT-392
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the NCAA on Lanni’s negligence claim. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Lanni’s April 20, 2012, motion for alteration of time. It effectively deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to present any material made pertinent to a Trial Rule 56 motion. Affirms denial of Lanni’s motion to strike the affidavit by the NCAA’s fencing championship manager, designated by the NCAA, that the NCAA was not involved in the fencing match where Lanni was injured.

Charles A. Walker v. State of Indiana

46A04-1210-PC-519
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Walker was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to request a directed verdict on the habitual offender count, and he did not receive ineffective assistance from appellate counsel.

Mark L. Jordan v. State of Indiana
45A04-1212-CR-646
Criminal. Reverses denial of petition for relief under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking a belated appeal. The denial of the petition without a hearing or specific findings was an error because Jordan was without fault in failing to file a timely notice of appeal in light of his attorney’s terminal illness. Remands for further proceedings.

Gersh Zavodnik v. Brian Richards and NJGOLFMAN.COM a/k/a Savva's Golf Enterprises a/k/a PROGOLFJERSEYCITY@YAHOO.COM and Steve Panayiotov, et al.
49A02-1209-CC-750
Civil collection. Grants rehearing and reaffirms original decision in all respects. Clarifies that although Zavodnik must obtain reinstatement of his original complaints under their original cause numbers, such reinstatement could be ordered by a judge other than Judge Oakes, if Judge Oakes indeed were to recuse himself from any future attempts at reinstatement.

In Re the Matter of: D.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-JV-851
Juvenile. Affirms finding that D.L. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

Mary K. Wallskog v. ACS (Affiliated Computer Services), et al. (NFP)
45A03-1206-CT-256
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Wallskog’s motion to correct error, which challenged the dismissal without prejudice of her claim against Jack Hyatte and Xerox Business Services LLC f/k/a Affiliated Computer Services.

S.R. v. R.S.Y. and T.L.Y. (NFP)

47A01-1210-AD-488
Adoption. Affirms adoption of minor by grandparents.

Heather Hill v. Daryl Hill (NFP)
64A03-1208-DR-363
Domestic relation. Affirms order on emancipation.

Paul Reese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1207-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction and sentence.

In Re: The Paternity of K.S.: M.M. (Mother) v. J.S. (Father) (NFP)

17A03-1209-JP-390
Juvenile. Affirms order awarding father J.S. primary physical custody of K.S.

Freddie L. McKnight, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Dismisses McKnight’s appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

Tyler E. Burton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1205-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of school property, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Shawn Tyler Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1209-CR-451
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement.

Xxavier Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1207-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court to vacate two of the three robbery convictions and sentences and resentence Jones on only one count of robbery.

Fiona C. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1208-CR-420
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

In the Matter of the Term.of the Parent-Child Rel. of: N.S. and D.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
68A05-1209-JT-490
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

Candace Hernton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class C misdemeanor failure to stop after an accident not resulting in injury.

Jerry Lee Slisz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1210-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

Zebulan Hildebrand v. State of Indiana (NFP)

69A01-1210-CR-459
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery and remands for clarification of the judgment of conviction.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Marion County Jail, Indiana Dept. of Correction, Jerry Huston, Karen Richards, and Stephen Hall (NFP)
49A02-1203-PL-291
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Justise’s motion for relief from judgment and dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

Thomas Dunigan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-812
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery and Class D felony domestic battery.

Coriyahvon Lamont Outlaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1209-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony unlawful possession of a legend drug and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.F. & H.D. (Minor Children), and J.D. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
52A05-1210-JT-531
Criminal. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT