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. 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