ILNews

Opinions Nov. 2, 2011

November 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Monte Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1009-CR-1040
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of receiving a ballot, entered as Class A misdemeanors.

Wilkie Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-278
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Ronald J. Lampitok v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Reverses conviction of and sentence for carrying a handgun without a license. Finds harmless errors in admitting Exhibit 44 and allowing the state to amend its charging information for Lampitok’s habitual offender charge.

Steven D. Hadley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A05-1106-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Class B felony criminal confinement.

Janet Greenwell v. Gregory J. Loomis, M.D. and Matthew B. Kern, M.D. (NFP)
82A04-1003-CT-173
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of doctors Gregory Loomis and Matthew Kern on Greenwell’s medical malpractice complaint.

Stan Rekewig LLC, Stanley Rekewig, Susan K. Rekewig, et al. v. Dickason Truck & Equipment, Inc., n/k/a FSD Enterprises, Inc., Frank W. Dickason Trust Number One, et al. (NFP)
90A02-1012-CC-1371
Civil collection. Affirms judgment of foreclosure of real estate in favor of Dickason Truck Equipment.

Indiana Tax Court
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Denies the assessor’s motion in its entirety to dismiss Idris’ and Kamenova’s tax appeal. Idris’ reliance on the clerk as the means to effect service did not run afoul of statutory requirements for initiating an original tax appeal under Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-5 because that statute recites no preference for any particular method of service. While Idris’ method of service admittedly did not comply with Tax Court Rule 16(C), it was consistent with the spirit and purpose of the rule.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT