ILNews

Opinions May 29, 2012

May 29, 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

Jason Tye Myers v. Charles R. Deets III, Deets & Kennedy, and Great American Insurance Group
79A02-1108-CT-771
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Edward Kennedy and the law firm on Myers’ claim for fraud against them and Deets. Myers couldn’t show that either Kennedy or the law firm was liable for Deets’ alleged fraudulent conduct. Reverses grant of Great American Insurance Group’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remands for further proceedings. Judge Riley concurs in part and dissents in part.

Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. EON Properties, LLC
45A05-1110-PL-587
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of EON Properties regarding the Sisters of St. Francis Health Services’ liability under the lease agreements to pay the last two years of rent after another tenant left the premises early, but reverses regarding EON’s alleged damages. Remands for the continuation of the underlying litigation regarding damages.

Jason B. Saunders v. State of Indiana
06A01-1111-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Saunders serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Saunders waived his delay and due process argument and the trial court did not err in ordering him to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence because of a probation violation.

Philip G. Yeary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
78A01-1111-CR-528
Criminal. Affirms denial of several motions challenging the authority and impartiality of the senior judge who presided over Yeary’s post-conviction motions.

James H. Privette v. Sherri E. Privette (Morris) (NFP)
30A01-1111-DR-534
Domestic relation. Affirms order James Privette pay Sherri Privette Morris an amount equal to 33 percent of certain pension payments he has received to date and that Morris is entitled to 33 percent of all future pension payments.

Richard Clark Shockley v. Tammie Anne Shockley (NFP)
79A02-1111-PO-1047
Protective order. Affirms in part the issuance of a protective order against Richard Shockley for the protection of his former wife and her fiancé. Reverses the protective order as to Shockley’s teenage daughter.

Laura L. Mosier v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Department of Health (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1092
Agency appeal. Affirms dismissal by review board of Mosier’s appeal of the decision she was discharged for just cause.

Michael D. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1110-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms order revoking home detention and order McGee serve his entire sentence in the Department of Correction.

Ryan Sheckles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1108-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of murder.

Damien Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1109-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Cornelio Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1111-CR-1023
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and determination that Martinez is a habitual controlled substance offender.

John R. Vicars v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1109-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 15 cases for the week ending May 25.
 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT