Opinions May 22, 2014

May 22, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Yellowbook Inc. f/k/a Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc. v. Central Indiana Cooling and Heating, Inc. and Lawrence E. Stone a/k/a Larry Stone
Civil collection. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. The trial court erred when it concluded that Yellow Book failed to credit certain Central Indiana Cooling and Heating payments under Contracts 1 and 2; Contract 3 was induced by fraud and is rescinded; and Yellow Book is entitled to pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for amounts owed under Contracts 1 and 2.

Maddox T. Macy v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Macy’s acts of opening the officer’s police car door and refusing to place her feet inside the car were not acts constituting forcible resistance.  

Julian Tuggle v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Tuggle’s Fourth Amendment rights and Article I, Section 11 rights were not violated. The evidence demonstrated that the detective acted lawfully and reasonably in seizing the bag of Tuggle’s clothing without a warrant.

Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery. Although the state committed prosecutorial misconduct in its first statement, that error was harmless. There was no misconduct related to the prosecutor’s second statement.

Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of River City Bank granting it the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ real estate. The principles of full faith and credit required the trial court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court res judicata to the instant cause.

In the Matter of the Paternity of B.C., M.B. and N.S. v. J.C.
Juvenile. Reverses denial of guardians’ motion to correct error following an order on custody and parenting time in a paternity action filed by J.C. in Montgomery County, and denial of their motions in Marion County to correct error following the dismissal of their guardianship and adoption action. Because the petition for adoption and the paternity action were pending at the same time, the court in which the petition for adoption had been filed had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C. Accordingly, the Montgomery Circuit Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction to enter its July 5, 2013, order as the Marion Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C., and the Marion Superior Court erred when it dismissed the guardianship and adoption proceedings.

Darren L. Sivley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Jeremy Riffert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 800-day sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

William A. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Sylvester Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.S. (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.M.D., E.D., and S.D., (Minor Children), and S.D., (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and four counts of Class A misdemeanor tattooing a minor.

Larry Powell v. Vanessa Powell (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms division of assets in the dissolution of the Powells’ marriage.

David W. Reed v. Jennifer Reed (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms award of primary physical custody of the two minor sons to mother.

Thomas H. Fuller, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order Fuller serve his entire previously suspended sentence following a violation of terms of work release.

Megan M. Hatzell v. Tyler A. Hatzell (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms custody modification order granting temporary custody of three minor daughters to their father.

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.