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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT