Opinions May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Lance Stover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Protective order. Affirms dismissal of petition for the protective order sought against Hudson.

Ray A. Chamorro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Danny Shane Claspell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Steven Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to issue order terminating parole.

Gabriel Senteney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Latroya Rucker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

R.C. v. J.Q. (NFP)
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.

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.