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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT