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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT