ILNews

Opinions Nov. 4, 2010

November 4, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
DBL Axel LLC v. Lasalle Bank National Association
15A01-1003-PL-205
Civil plenary. Affirms order directing immediate turnover of funds in favor of LaSalle Bank. The checks paid by the city of Lawrenceburg to DBL concerned the property in question and were within the scope of and subject to the receivership order, and DBL’s failure to include that money paid or otherwise notify the receiver of the settlement agreement was a violation of that order. Remands for the trial court to amend its order directing immediate turnover of funds and enter an order directing turnover in the amount of $1,365,500.

Bruce R. Fox v. Dennis Rice and West Central Community Corrections
54A01-1003-PL-97
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of West Central Community Corrections in Fox’s claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of rights under the Indiana and federal constitutions. The tort claim notice period expired before Fox filed his notice, and his federal claim doesn’t contain a genuine issue of material fact.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Azzie Justice v. Garnet S. Justice (NFP)
43A03-0912-CV-584
Civil. Affirms appointing Garnet as the guardian of the person and estate of Azzie.

Linda Chiesi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1003-PC-205
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.J.M.; C.M. v. Lake County DCS (NFP)
45A03-1004-JT-248
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kenneth Mitan v. Richard E. Deckard Family Limited Partnership #206 (NFP)
53A01-0912-CV-612
Civil. Affirms conclusion that Mitan was a proper party to the partnerships forfeiture action. Reverses award of all personal property and remands with instructions to award to the partnership only that personal property specified by the contract as being included in the sale.

Nickolas Sandifer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms denial of Sandifer’s unverified, oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT