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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT