ILNews

Opinions Nov. 10, 2010

November 10, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Scott D. Wells v. Herman Bud Bernitt, et al.
53A01-0910-CV-494
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Bernitts on Wells’ claim against them for defamation because there was no admissible evidence before the court to establish actual malice, an element of defamation. Affirms summary judgment in favor of J.D. Maxwell and Travis Coryea as to Wells’ claim for negligent and intentional torts finding the evidence establishes the officers didn’t use excessive force. Affirms summary judgment for Wells on the Bernitts’ cross appeal alleging abuse of process.

Robert J. Blanford v. Judy D. Blanford
65A01-1004-DR-181
Domestic relation. The trial court erred in calculating Robert’s child support obligations on two worksheets and treating each son as an only child without an explanation of its reasons. Affirms determination and allocation of extraordinary educational expenses as part of Robert’s support obligations related to college education. Reverses assigning funds in his 401(k) to his children rather than Robert and Judy upon S.B.’s completion of a bachelor’s degree because this assignment was a post-dissolution modification of the division of marital assets. Remands with instructions.

Kevin Barton v. State of Indiana
18A04-0910-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony conviction of failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death. The trial court didn’t err when it denied Barton’s motion to dismiss, which asserted that the state was barred under collateral estoppel principles from prosecuting him, because he failed to comply with Indiana Code Section 9-26-1-1. He waived his claim of Doyle violations by the prosecutor during closing statements and the trial court properly determined the substance of Barton’s proposed instruction was adequately covered by other jury instructions.

C & R Realty, LLC v. Jerry Tooley (NFP)
26A01-1007-PL-391
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of C&R Realty’s motion to set aside a default judgment under Trial Rule 60(B).

Quentin L. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1006-CR-388
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty pleas to three counts of Class B felony robbery, one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony battery.

Mamadou Sow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of resisting law enforcement.
 
Damon A. Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-PC-154
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kenneth J. DeBord v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1006-PC-290
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for further proceedings.
 
Paul Catterall v. James Donbrock d/b/a Donbrock Enterprises (NFP)
76A04-1004-SC-219
Small claims. Affirms conclusion Donbrock could collect maintenance fees from Catterall from Jan. 5, 2002, to July 12, 2002. The court erred by ordering Donbrock to pay fees for months prior to Jan. 5 and prejudgment interest. Reverses ruling regarding fees prior to Jan. 5 and remands for an order consistent with the opinion.

Jean D. Schoknecht v. Susan E. Dunlap (NFP)
49A04-0912-CV-745
Civil. Reverses Schoknecht’s claims as a landlord against tenant Dunlap.
 
R.B. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1005-EX-589
Civil. Reverses denial of claim for unemployment benefits.
 
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT