ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2010

November 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lorenzo Tavarez
09-3879
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of distributing 50 grams or more methamphetamine. Tavarez failed to show that the confidential informant was available only to the government. The District Court therefore did not err by refusing the missing witness instruction. Concludes that the jury could reasonably reach its guilty verdict on the circumstantial evidence presented here.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paternity of C.H.; K.L. v. M.H.
41A01-1003-JP-145
Juvenile. Affirms parenting time schedule regarding father M.H.’s time and the appointment of a parenting coordinator. The evidence showed that C.H. had bonded well with both parents and needs time with both of them, and the trial court’s assessment of M.H.’s time is not an error. The trial court didn’t error in appointing the parent coordinator given the ongoing communication difficulties the parents have had regarding the parenting time schedule.

Mary Booher, et al. v. Sheeram, LLC

20A03-1005-CT-338
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Sheeram LLC on the Boohers’ negligence complaint. Having failed to file a formal request with the trial court for an extension of time, the trial court was without discretion to accept the technically late-filed documents.

Tony A. Holmes v. Celadon Trucking of Indiana, et al.
49A02-1007-PL-714
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of Celadon Trucking’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Holmes began the instant suit against Celadon within the statutorily allotted time. Remands for further proceedings.

City of Jeffersonville v. Hallmark at Jeffersonville

10A01-1001-PL-22
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Hallmark of Jeffersonville on its complaint for refund of sewer tap fees. Affirms the court’s findings and conclusion as to the proper total amount of $15,000 that Hallmark should have been assessed as a sewer tap or connection fee for the three buildings. Concludes the voluntary payment doctrine is inapplicable in this case.

In the Matter of the Unsupervised Estate of Dwight M. Wilson v. Phyllis Steward
70A01-1003-EU-104
Estate unsupervised. Affirms Steward’s claim against the estate for unpaid child support is not barred by Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-12. The evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of satisfaction of the judgment.

Robert L. Comer v. State of Indiana
46A05-0912-CR-718
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Comer serve the balance of his sentences. The appellate court doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain Comer’s challenge, if any, to the sentence originally imposed.

Donald G. Kistler v. State of Indiana

35A04-1004-PC-245
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Kistler did not demonstrate that he wouldn’t have pled guilty even if properly advised and his claim of ineffective assistance fails.

Wayne & Susan Vanderwier v. Joshua & Stephannie Baker

45A03-1003-CC-129
Civil collection. Affirms judgment in favor of the Bakers on their claims for fraud arising from their purchase of the Vanderwiers’ home. This evidence supports the trial court’s judgment that the Bakers established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Vanderwiers made fraudulent misrepresentations on the Sales Disclosure Form and that the Bakers justifiably relied on the Vanderwiers’ fraudulent disclosure of only “minor garage seepage.”

Robert Guy v. Commissioner, Indiana BMV
30A01-1001-PL-186
Civil plenary. Vacates trial court’s denial of Guy’s verified petition for order to renew his Indiana operator’s license. Because Guy only served the commissioner of the BMV and not the attorney general, as required by both the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act and Indiana Trial Rule 4.6(A)(3), the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction.

Charlotte Manns v. Amos J. Richie, et al.

37A03-1006-CT-294
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Richie on Manns’ complaint for unjust enrichment. As a matter of law, Manns did not confer any benefit upon Richie.

Clarence Seeley, Jr. v. State of Indiana
21A05-1003-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms refusal to tender Seeley’s jury instruction. The evidence unequivocally demonstrated that Seeley was not “briefly” within 1,000 feet of school property when he illegally sold a controlled substance from his residence. As such, there was no evidence in the record to support the giving of the proffered jury instruction on the statutory defense. The state presented sufficient evidence that St. Gabriel’s School was “school property” for purposes of the statutory enhancement. Reverses habitual offender finding and remands for re-sentencing.

Dewayne E. Rhye v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A05-1004-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony conspiracy to commit theft, Class D felony criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Raymond Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1001-CR-47
Criminal. Affirms habitual offender adjudication and sentence for Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Stephen Quick, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
23A05-1005-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for change of judge and 125-year sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Jose L. Macias v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1004-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.A.; S.J.M. and J.A. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)

20A03-1004-JT-228
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In Re: The Guardianship of Patrick Hill; Kristin S. Hill v. Michael W. Hill (NFP)
49A04-0906-CV-339
Civil. Affirms probate court’s order appointing Michael Hill as guardian over son Patrick.

In the Matter of I.D.; T.D. v. IDCS (NFP)

49A05-1003-JC-198
Juvenile. Affirms finding that I.D. is a child in need of services.

Sharla Hackney and Raymond Hackney, Sr. v. Stacy G. Toole (NFP)

41A01-1003-CC-121
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Toole in Sharla Hackney’s suit for negligence.

Ronald Fisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-411
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Gerardo Delao v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1004-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following admission to violating probation.

James R. Stephens v. Brenda K. Stephens (NFP)

33A05-1006-DR-434
Domestic relation. Dismisses James Stephens’ appeal of the order regarding his child support arrearage because his appeal is untimely.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT