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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT