ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2012

May 30, 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

Clifton Ervin v. State of Indiana
29A05-1109-CR-454
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
83A01-1103-CT-137
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
71A03-1111-PL-521
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
22A01-1110-JT-485
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)
29A04-1108-CR-487
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)
15A04-1110-JT-587
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Kamal El-Adnani v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1109-CR-463
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)
45A03-1112-CT-560
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)
53A05-1110-CC-535
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)
36A05-1108-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of murder and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Mitchell L. Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1110-PC-1028
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)
49A04-1101-CR-1
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.

 

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT