ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2011

November 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
David Hopper v. State of Indiana
13S01-1007-PC-399
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to address the role and necessity of advising someone of the risks of dealing with prosecutors without a lawyer. The post-conviction court was right that Hopper’s waiver of counsel was voluntary and intelligent. Finds Hopper’s contention that advisement language should be mandatory in all stages of all cases with all defendants is misplaced. Justice Rucker dissents with separate opinion, in which Justice Sullivan concurs.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Justin Woodhouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1012-CR-1322
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of a chemical reagent or precursor with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and four counts of Class C misdemeanor purchasing more than three grams of a precursor. Remands to clarify its earlier order to properly indicate the merger of counts I and II.

McCoy Tile v. Meyer Glass & Mirror, and Robert Fryer (NFP)
46A03-1102-SC-102
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Fryer with respect to his claim that McCoy Tile improperly installed tile in Fryer’s shower.

Rodney Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-PC-97
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Matthew Totten v. Review Board of the Indiana Workforce Development and Great Lakes Granite (NFP)
93A02-1102-EX-209
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of employment benefits.

Nationwide Ins. Co., and Edward and Anne Mickel v. Paul Parmer, II, Rick Ramsey and Heather Sida
41A01-1008-CT-377
Civil tort. Affirms orders granting Parmer’s and Sida’s motions for leave to amend their affirmative defenses and the order denying the Mickels’ and Nationwide Insurance Co.’s motion to reconsider. The Mickels and Nationwide did not timely request certification of the Jan. 4 order and therefore waived their claims regarding the order on appeal. Sida properly objected to the trial court’s dismissal and preserved her right to add nonparty defendants.

Max Riley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1105-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attempted theft.

Natalie A. Miller, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alexis J. Ritch, Daniel J. Ritch, et al. v. L. Barrett Bernard, M.D., the Bethany Circle of King's Daughters Hospital & Health, et al.
39A05-1009-PL-546
Civil plenary. Reverses in part summary judgment for defendants Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals and CVS Pharmacy. The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Dr. Loeb; defendants were entitled to the statutory rebuttable presumption of no defect in the manufacture of Promethazine Syrup Plain, but whether the plaintiffs have rebutted this presumption remains a question of fact; and whether MGP’s production and CVS’s distribution of PSP caused Alexis Ritch’s death is also a question of fact. Concludes that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to exclude other expert testimonies in favor of the plaintiffs. Affirms in part the allowance of the opinions of doctors Kenneth Kulig and George Nichols. Remands for further proceedings.

Darnell Daniels v. State of Indiana
20A03-1104-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class C felony intimidation. The state only needed to present evidence from which the jury could infer that the victim was in fact put in fear. It’s not necessary for the victim to testify that he or she was actually put in fear. The variance in the charging information and the proof at trial is not fatal and there was sufficient evidence that Daniels “used” the gun while intimidating his victim.

Jose Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-410
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that the failure to instruct issue is waived. Affirms original opinion in all respects.

State of Indiana v. Jaime Bonilla
49A02-1102-PC-144
Post conviction. Reverses grant of petition for post-conviction relief. Bonilla did not allege special circumstances or objective facts demonstrating his decision to plead guilty was driven by his counsel’s erroneous advice.

Steve Barnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1008-CR-397
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re: The Marriage of Steve Metzger and Peggy Metzger (NFP)
43A03-1101-DR-18
Domestic relation. Affirms order that father pay child support and a portion of expenses incurred for the post-secondary education of two of his children.

Sean Holtsclaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1103-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Martize Sevion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms denial of Sevion’s motion to correct erroneous sentence. Dismisses Sevion’s claims with respect to the merits of his conviction due to his untimely appeal.

Erica Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1103-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Joseph Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1104-PC-186
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

K.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1105-JV-252
Juvenile. Affirms disposition order following adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be theft if committed by an adult.

John V. Loudermilk, Continental American Ins. Co., Geneva P. Loudermilk, et al. v. Jet Credit Union n/k/a Credit Union 1 (NFP)
49A02-1006-PL-665
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Jet Credit regarding co-defendants’ counterclaim for common law conversion.

A.W.S. v. C.S.-R. (NFP)
29A04-1102-DR-142
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to remove restrictions on parenting time.

Kevin Scaife v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

D.L., b/n/f G.L. v. Pioneer School Corporation, Pioneer Board of School Trustees and Larry John
09A02-1103-MI-271
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of D.L.’s request to overturn his expulsion from Pioneer High School. The trial court’s decision was not contrary to law.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to one case for the week ending Nov. 23.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT