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. 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