ILNews

Opinions Nov. 24, 2010

November 24, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Samuel Neal, Delores Neal and Hometown Transmissions, Inc. v. William J. Cure, et al.
49A04-0908-CV-468
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the Cures on the Neals’ claims of environmental contamination under the Environmental Legal Act, nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The designated evidence does not, in light of the Cures' lack of involvement in or knowledge of Masterwear’s actions, give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Cures' liability for nuisance, trespass, negligence, or an ELA violation.

Estate of Doris P. Jackson, John Cox, et al. v. George R. Jackson, II, et al.
77A04-1005-ES-331
Estate. Affirms order that objectors to a sale of property, who are beneficiaries of the land, post a $100,000 cash bond. Concludes the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by ordering a cash bond simply because it might pose a hardship and be more expensive than another form of surety.

Allied Property and Casualty Ins. v. Linda Good and Randall Good
85A04-0905-CV-240
Civil. Reverses denial of Allied’s motion for summary judgment because misrepresentations on the application for insurance made Linda Good’s policy void ab initio. Because the uncontradicted evidence indicates Linda misrepresented the Goods’ cancellation history on the application for homeowners insurance and Allied would not have issued the policy if it had known the truth about their history, the trial court erred by denying Allied’s motion for summary judgment.

Bradley Peaver v. State of Indiana
02A03-1004-PC-255
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Peaver can’t prevail on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. He waived the issue on appeal as to whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted testimony under the Protected Person Statute and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction of Class C felony child exploitation.

St. Joseph Hospital v. Richard Cain
02A05-1006-PL-386
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of Fort Wayne Metropolitan Human Rights Commission’s motion to dismiss St. Joseph’s petition for judicial review of the HRC’s decision for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over St. Joseph’s unverified petition for judicial review, it improperly granted the HRC’s motion to dismiss and declined to rule on the other outstanding motions, namely St. Joseph’s motion to amend. The alleged lack of a quorum, however, was not properly raised in St. Joseph’s motion to dismiss. Remands for consideration of St. Joseph’s motion to amend.

City of Indianapolis, Metropolitan Development Commission and Indiana Sports Corporation v. Clarke Kahlo and Howard Elder, et al.
49A05-0912-CV-722
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether Kahlo and Elder have standing, although on different reasoning, and reverses the denial of summary judgment on the issues of the nature of the 1985 Agreement, the applicability of Indiana Code Section 36-1-11-3, and whether the execution of the Amendment triggered the buyout provision in the restrictive covenant of the 1985 Agreement. Remands with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis and other defendants accordingly.

John P. Donovan v. State of Indiana
71A05-1003-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft because there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

J.B. & J.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1006-JV-679
Juvenile. Affirms adjudications for committing what would be child molesting as Class C felonies if committed by an adult.

Christopher Brinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1007-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

M.N. v. A.N. (NFP)
49A02-1002-DR-152
Domestic relation. Affirms order dissolving the parties’ marriage.

Tyrone A. Saunders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-0910-PC-607
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Latrina Strader v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Roger Sloan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony battery and being a habitual offender.

J.D.S. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1006-EX-698
Civil. Affirms decision of the Review Board in favor M.H. on claims for unemployment benefits.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.J.; V.B. and K.J. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A04-1004-JT-226
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parent-child relationship.

MacLellan Integrated Services, Inc.v. Domineck P. Marano, II (NFP)

26A01-1006-CT-296
Civil tort. Affirms denial of MacLellan’s motion for summary judgment in Marano’s negligence action against the company.

Robert Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-PC-266
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.Y., et al.; R.W.-S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
45A04-1001-JT-217
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Tonya Peete v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT