ILNews

Opinions May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bonnie Moryl, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Rep. of the Estate of Richard A. Moryl, Deceased v. Carey B. Ransone, M.D.; La Porte Hospital; Dawn Forney, RN; Wanda Wakeman, RN BSBA; et al.
46A04-1112-CT-710
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the defendants, on which the trial court determined that Bonnie Moryl’s proposed complaint for medical malpractice was not timely filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance. The trial court properly found that her complaint sent to the DOI by FedEx was filed one day late under the two-year statute of limitations.

G.H. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1207-JV-532
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication that G.H. committed what would be Class D felony criminal gang activity if committed by an adult. The state failed to prove he had a specific intent to further a gang’s criminal goals, which is necessary to sustain an adjudication.

In Re: the Paternity of M.R.; A.K. v. J.R. (NFP)
50A03-1211-JP-457
Juvenile. Affirms custody modification order granting father J.R. physical custody of M.R.

Ronald L. Hoffman and Christy G. Hoffman, and Johnson Sunnybrook Farm, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Co. v. Lake Co. Indiana, a unit of government, its County Council, et al. (NFP)

45A03-1206-PL-291
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Singleton Stone as the opposed landowners to the rezoning had no standing to challenge the rezoning.

Bradley Ryan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1211-CR-921
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Eldon E. Harmon v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A05-1212-CR-634
Criminal. Affirms 16-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

James Q. Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-PC-869
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Carmell D. Nelson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1208-CR-349
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Mark A. Centofante v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1207-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Demetrick Cameron v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1209-CR-733
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for failure to pay child support.

Deborah Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1211-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Chandler serve 10 years of her 16-year suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

LP XXIV, LLC d/b/a Las Palmas Apartment Homes and SLS Management, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Carl Long (NFP)

49A04-1207-PL-340
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Las Palmas’ and SLS’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of agency.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

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