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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT