ILNews

Opinions Nov. 20, 2013

November 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clifford and Judith Ann Garrett v. Paul and Linda Spear
23A01-1303-PL-96
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the Spears on their claims of title by acquiescence and adverse possession and denial of summary judgment for the Garrets. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment based upon the doctrine of title by acquiescence.

Tony Sluder v. State of Indiana
03A01-1305-CR-208
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Sluder intended to use the syringe to introduce a controlled substance into his body.

Thomas Haggerty and Cathy Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3
53A01-1210-CT-472
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part. The trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the issue of immunity because it is an affirmative defense. Concludes that the Haggertys’ suit against the anonymous parties is barred by statutory immunity. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, on immunity grounds, to AP1. Concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether immunity also applies to AP2 and AP3; thus, reverses the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. Judge Baker dissents in part.

The City of Fort Wayne v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. d/b/a All-Phase Electric Supply Co.
02A04-1306-CC-283
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for All-Phase on its unpaid subcontractor’s claim served on the mayor of Fort Wayne and against the city. When read in conjunction with relevant statutory provisions, I.C. 36-1-12-12 allowed All-Phase to serve notice of its unpaid subcontractor’s claim on the mayor of Fort Wayne. Also finds that All-Phase provided timely notice of its claim.

In Re The Paternity of B.B., R.B. v. T.J.
34A02-1303-JP-243
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying custody, visitation and support of B.B. to mother T.J. The court ruled that the mother was in the best position to act as B.B.’s primary caretaker and awarded her physical custody. After review, COA cannot say that the court’s findings or conclusions were clearly erroneous and concludes that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting her petition to modify custody.

John S. Paniaguas, Kathy R. Paniaguas, Woodrow Cornett, III, and Kristine E. Cornett v. Endor, Inc. et al (NFP)
45A03-1205-PL-244
Civil plenary. Affirms order that determined that the appellee homeowners’ homes were in compliance with the restrictive covenants of the subdivision.

In The Matter of The Estate of Charles W. Merlau, Deceased, Patricia Trout v. C. Thomas Cone, et al (NFP)
30A01-1304-EU-166
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms in part and reverses in part, and remands with instructions to conduct further proceedings. The successor representative improperly valued the stock, in that it should have been valued as of the date of distribution rather than on the date of the decedent’s death. All of the heirs should share equally in the payment of the taxes and the loss that was incurred on the stock. A subsequent hearing needs to be conducted that also addresses the issue of an administrative claim that the business lodged against the estate.

Dino D. Hickmon, Sr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1305-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms 22-year sentence for two convictions of Class B felony incest.

Howard Moffitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class D felony theft and Class C misdemeanor operating never having received a license.

Carlowe Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1304-CR-440
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Tawon L. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1304-CR-368
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

George Cunitz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1305-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms 40-year sentence following convictions for two counts of Class B felony burglary.

Eric Rasnick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1211-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 36-year sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT