ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2012

November 29, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terry and Laura Wagler, Larry and Jennifer Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Janet and Nathan Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer District Inc.
14A01-1109-PL-427
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Waglers’ motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 60(B), and that the court did not err in directing Janet and Nathan Wagler to connect to the sewer system. Denies West Boggs’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Miles Ogea d/b/a Mo Auger Investments and Mo's Tavern v. Karamesines Credit Shelter Trust (NFP)
18A04-1206-CT-288
Civil tort. Affirms ruling that Ogea has a duty to indemnify the second trust pursuant to the lease agreement between Ogea and the trust.

H. Wayne Burnett, M.D. v. Pamela A. Burnett, M.D. (NFP)
29A02-1203-DR-180
Domestic relation. Affirms valuation of Dr. H. Wayne Burnett’s partnership interest in a medical practice and the award of expert witness fees to Dr. Pamela A. Burnett. Affirms unequal division of the marital estate.

Richard A. Childress, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1206-PC-246
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel.of: M.M. (Minor Child), and S.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A02-1204-JT-323
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Corbin Bardonner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Jamey Taskey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1204-CR-164
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

David S. Healey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1202-MI-107
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of verified petition to remove designation as offender.

Vickie Fenoglio, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Fenoglio, Deceased v. Gregory Brock, D.O. (NFP)
84A04-1202-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Dr. Gregory Brock.

Timothy J. Gilbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1205-PC-213
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT