ILNews

Opinions May 26, 2011

May 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry French, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
18A02-1005-PL-489
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court properly denied summary judgment for both parties on the question of whether the insurance policy terms covered the cost of replacing the Frenches’ manufactured home with a stick-built one. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the Frenches’ coverage-by-estoppel claim because there is no dispute that coverage exists; to enter summary judgment for the Frenches on the question of reformation of the policy based on mutual mistake of fact and rescission of the policy based on concealment of material facts by the Frenches. Remands for trial on whether State Farm should be liable for the costs of a stick-built home.

Brian Kendrick v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-300
Criminal. Vacates Kendrick’s two Class C felony feticide convictions on double jeopardy grounds because the evidentiary facts used to establish those convictions established all of the elements of the Class A felony attempted murder conviction. Remands for re-sentencing on the remaining counts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a witness unavailable for trial. There was no prosecutorial misconduct that would entitle Kendrick to a new trial.

Alaska Seaboard Partners Limited Partnership v. Gerald Hood, et al.
32A01-1010-MF-546
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Hendricks County Bank, the McDonalds, and the Boutots and denial of Alaska Seaboard’s cross-motion for summary judgment in Alaska’s mortgage foreclosure action. Alaska’s foreclosure action is barred by the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel. Affirms award of attorney fees to Hendricks County Bank, the McDonalds, and the Boutots.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.A.; R.A. v. IDCS (NFP)
82A05-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Michelle D. Breedlove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1011-CR-755
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Donald E. Bunting v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A05-1009-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C felony possession of at least three grams of methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.M., et al.; M.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
71A05-1010-JT-638
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Daniel R. Penticuff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1101-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and in a manner that endangered a person.

Marlon Snead v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-511
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry and remands with instructions to re-sentence Snead.

Douglas McCorkle v. Alesia McCorkle (NFP)
30A01-1009-DR-438
Domestic relation. Reverses custody order and remands for a re-determination of custody.

Dennis Mysliwy v. Teresa Mysliwy (NFP)
45A03-1009-PO-548
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protective order against Dennis Mysliwy.

Elysia B. Souders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1008-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT