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.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.