ILNews

Opinions May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith, Deceased v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc. and Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta, et al.
54S01-1405-CT-356
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of national fraternity Delta Tau Delta on the Smiths’ wrongful death complaint. There is no designated evidentiary material that shows that the national fraternity had a right to exercise direct day-to-day oversight and control of the behavior of the activities of the local fraternity and its members. Concludes as a matter of law that an agency relationship does not exist between the national fraternity and the local fraternity or its members.

Larry Robert David, II, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Marie David, Deceased v. William Kleckner, M.D.
49S02-1405-MI-355
Miscellaneous. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Kleckner on David’s wrongful death medical malpractice complaint. Kleckner is not entitled to summary judgment on his defense asserting the medical malpractice statute of limitations.

Indiana Tax Court
David A. McKeeman, Sr., and Karen A. McKeeman v. Steuben County Assessor
02T10-1104-TA-31
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s decision upholding the McKeemans’ 2006 real property assessment. The board did not err in rejecting their claim regarding establishment of their neighborhood, the McKeemans have not shown that the board erred in upholding the $5,900 base rate applied to their land, and they have not shown that the board erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. d/b/a Zurich Northland Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co. of America
02S03-1305-CT-332
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment order capping Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co.’s liability for uninsured motorist coverage at $75,000. Indiana law applies because the truck at issue was registered and garaged in Indiana. But issues of material fact remain regarding the applicable level of coverage. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana
79A05-1309-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement. The Tippecanoe County Community Corrections had the authority to reject Treece from his placement in community corrections for a violation he committed while in the community transition program. He committed an act of violence, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community corrections placement. Remands for clarification of sentencing order.

Guardianship of Phyllis D. Hayes, an Adult, Joann Hayes and Dianna Hale v. Kenneth J. Hayes
52A02-1308-GU-751
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Hayes’ and Hale’s motion for summary judgment and the trial court order concluding that the execution of an option contract by their mother, Phyllis Hayes, to their brother was enforceable. The trial court’s conclusion that their mother was not acting under undue influence when she executed the option contract was not clearly erroneous.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald A. Prout
49A04-1305-CR-236
Criminal. Affirms grant of Prout’s petition to expunge his arrest record. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no offense was committed and that no probable cause existed to support either the filing or the prosecution of the charges. Prout, a sheriff’s deputy, was charged with four counts of Class D felony theft for allegedly working as a security guard while being paid by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

Mauricio Reyes-Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Lance Stover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Holly and Christopher Dunn, Holly and Benjamin Rothenbush, and Tomi and Michael Meyer v. Kathryn Davis and For the Children Medical Mission Foundation, Inc. (NFP)
02A03-1307-PL-269
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment to For the Children Medical Mission Foundation on breach of contract and fraud claims.

Anthony Flores v. Blake A. Hudson (NFP)
02A03-1307-PO-279
Protective order. Affirms dismissal of petition for the protective order sought against Hudson.

Ray A. Chamorro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A05-1309-CR-445
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Danny Shane Claspell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1310-CR-880
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting but reverses sentence and remands for it to be reduced to the advisory sentence of four years.

Dejuan D. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1310-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine; reverses the sentencing order in part and remands for further proceedings.

Robert L. McFall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A05-1309-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school. Remands for further sentencing proceedings on the charge of possession of paraphernalia.

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-900
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Steven Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-750
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to issue order terminating parole.

Gabriel Senteney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-818
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Latroya Rucker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-918
Criminal. Affirms order that Rucker pay $240 in restitution to the owner of the vehicle whose windshield she smashed.

Betty Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-805
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct but reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1401-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

R.C. v. J.Q. (NFP)
49A04-1308-DR-425
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s denial of father’s motion to continue the final hearing and concludes that father waived his claim of error under Evidence Rule 612. The trial court’s child support order is supported by the evidence. Remands with instructions to issue an order containing findings sufficient to support its decision to restrict father’s parenting time or enter a new order without the restriction.

In re the Paternity of T.T.: D.T. v. S.B. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms denial of petition to modify court-ordered child support for T.T.
85A02-1311-JP-1006

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony burglary, Class B felony attempted arson, Class D felony criminal mischief and Class D felony intimidation.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Thursday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT