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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT