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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT