ILNews

Opinions May 25, 2012

May 25, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana
03A01-1108-CR-369
Criminal. Dismisses Haste’s appeal of his conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine because the order from which he appeals isn’t a final judgment.

Mark Gasser v. Lesa B. Downing, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and Property Owners Insurance Company
19A05-1108-PL-419
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Gasser’s motion for summary judgment, and affirms summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, on Gasser’s suit for underinsured motorist coverage. Gasser’s friend’s car, in which Gasser was riding, was not a “temporary substitute” for purposes of the Auto Owners policy because it was being used as a favor or friendly accommodation, not to fulfill a legal or contractual obligation Gasser had.

Cody Dallas v. Brandon Cessna
80A02-1110-CT-925
Civil tort. Affirms finding that Dallas is jointly and severally liable to Cessna for damages following intentional acts of battery. The Comparative Fault Act clearly stipulates that Cessna may recover 100 percent of his damages for the intentional tort from Dallas, as Dallas pleaded guilty after a prosecution based on the same evidence used in the civil proceedings.
 
In Re the Estate of Ruby Shuler Blankenbaker Botkins, Deceased; Mark Allen Shuler and David Lee Shuler, co-personal representatives v. Estate of George Botkins and Larry Botkins, personal rep.
22A05-1109-ES-481
Estate supervised. Dismisses appeal by Mark and David Shuler of the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside a family settlement agreement relating to the administration of Ruby Botkins’ estate because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Anthony Dorelle-Moore v. State of Indiana
45A04-1109-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Dorelle-Moore claimed the trial court abused its discretion relating to the prosecutor’s communications with a potential witness. Any suppression of a witness’s testimony was no more than a harmless error.

Tyjuan J. Dixon v. State of Indiana
45A03-1110-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and two counts of Class A felony attempted murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the state to introduce extrinsic evidence in the form of testimony from a police detective as impeachment of another prosecution witness.

Anthony McCoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1110-PC-511
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keith M. Butler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1105-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts each of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and one count of Class D felony child solicitation.

William Pargo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms grant of state’s motion to amend charges against Pargo.

Clovis Smith v. Alexandra Ryan (NFP)
07A01-1111-PO-518
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protection order and determination that Smith is “Brady disqualified” from buying a firearm.

Victoria Thomas v. National Education Association-South Bend and South Bend School Corporation (NFP)
71A03-1107-MI-383
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Thomas’ motion to stay and affirmation of the decision by the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board that concluded the National Education Association – South Bend did not violate its duty to fairly represent Thomas in her grievance against her employer, South Bend Community School Corp.

Lucas E. Holland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1107-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder and Class B felony armed robbery.

Lorinda Harper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1110-CR-981
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Darrell Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-939
Criminal. Affirms order that Lawrence serve his entire suspended sentence following a probation violation.

Shane J. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms in part and remands for a more specific statement of the terms of Johnson’s probation revocation consistent with the opinion.

Jeremy Kyle Everhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1105-CR-253
Criminal. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Paul Esparza v. Denis Lynch (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/may/05251204msm.pdf
75A04-1104-SC-184
Small claim. Affirms $1,000 judgment in favor of Lynch for destruction of property.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT