ILNews

Opinions Nov. 28, 2011

November 28, 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
Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana
89A05-1103-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. Daugherty’s arguments on appeal are insufficient to demonstrate reversible error. Affirms the admission of the state’s evidence.

Manuel Trujillo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1102-PC-73
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief, in which Trujillo challenged two separate convictions under separate cause numbers for conspiracy to deal marijuana. Trujillo can’t establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him that the 1999 and 2008 prosecutions may impact his immigration status. The trial courts in the two cases also did not violate Indiana Code 35-35-1-2 in accepting Trujillo’s guilty pleas.

Eric Stickdorn and Lisa Stickdorn v. Elam B. Zook, Sarah F. Zook, Samuel L. Lantz and Mattie Z. Lantz
89A01-1012-CT-670
Civil tort. Affirms determination that the Stickdorns’ personal injury claims against the Lantzes and the negligence claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. By 2005, the Stickdorns’ complaint for personal injury had accrued and were ascertainable, but the complaint was not filed until November 2009. Reverses grant of summary judgment for the Lantzes with regards to the nuisance and trespass claims and remands for further proceedings. The designated evidence establishes that the Lantzes refused to stop or change their waste storage, disposal and management practices that harmed the Stickdorns through April 2005. The statute of limitations did not preclude the Stickdorns from complaining about the continued instances of nuisance and trespass.

Marsean Shines v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1105-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery, Class D felony criminal confinement, Class B misdemeanor false informing, and Shines’ habitual offender enhancement.

James C. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the previously suspended portion of Lewis’ sentence.

Richard Edward Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1103-CR-165
Criminal. Reverses in part Hughes' convictions of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon and Class D felony criminal recklessness and orders the trial court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for criminal recklessness.

Aaron Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death.

David Rippe v. Edward C. Levy Company (NFP)
45A03-1102-CT-30
Civil tort.  Affirms jury verdict in favor of Edward C. Levy Co. that found Levy not liable for the injuries Rippe sustained while an employee of an independent contractor at a Levy site.

Angela Townsell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors intimidation and battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Z.S.; C.S. and L.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
67A01-1104-JT-193
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of G.B. and J.N.; E.B. (mother) and A.N. (father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-315
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Donald L. Pruitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1105-CR-218
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Daniel Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1105-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Brian K. Brantley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1102-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony battery, two counts of Class D felony intimidation, and battery as a Class A misdemeanor and Class B misdemeanor.

Jasper Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony attempted robbery, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT