Opinions May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012
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

Clifton Ervin v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms grant of a portion of Ervin’s motion to suppress. The trial court properly determined that the evidence seized by the uniformed on-duty police officers should not be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule. Remands for trial.

James Androusky, II, Individually and as Personal Rep. of the Estate of James Androusky, III, Deceased v. Cole A. Walter and Tammra Androusky
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Cole in a wrongful death action following the drowning death of James Androusky II’s son. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury regarding licensee versus invitee status, on abandonment under the Child Wrongful Death Act, regarding a state administrative pool safety regulation, or on the effect of a parent’s failure to supervise his or her child around a known or obvious condition upon the land.  

Dianne L. Perkins v. Jeffrey Stesiak, and Pfeifer, Morgan and Stesiak
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Jeffrey Stesiak and the law firm in Perkins’ legal malpractice action against Stesiak for not filing her claim for emotional distress against a school district. Perkins does not have a viable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander theory of recovery or Indiana’s modified impact rule.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.K.; O.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. There is clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to D.K.’s initial removal and continued placement outside of the mother’s care would not be remedied.

Donald Everling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.R.: K.C. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Kamal El-Adnani v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies battery resulting in serious bodily injury and neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury.

The Estate of Rose Graves v. Anonymous Nursing Home (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms grant of a motion to dismiss the estate’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Anonymous Nursing Home.

David E. Schalk v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co., Inc. (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co. regarding its breach of contract claim against Schalk for advertising services that it provided.

Robert Allen Barker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of murder and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Mitchell L. Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies criminal deviate conduct and battery. Remands with instructions to vacate the conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reinstate the conviction of criminal confinement as a Class D felony and impose a sentence consistent with the instructions of the opinion.

Melvin Bishop v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing Bishop’s arguments and clarifying original analysis. Affirms opinion in all respects. Judge Brown concurs and dissents.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues