ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2012

November 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Michael Kucholick v. State of Indiana
12S02-1211-CR-630
Criminal. Justices grant transfer and order Kucholick’s sentence for Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief revised to the advisory term of four years, all executed. Summarily affirms Court of Appeals decision in all respects. Chief Justice Dickson dissents, believing the trial court’s sentence of seven years should be affirmed.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dennis Larson, Rose Real Estate, Inc., and Diversified Commercial Real Estate v. Peter N. Karagan
45A04-1112-CC-656
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Karagan on his breach of contract and conversion claims as well as the award of treble damages. There are no genuine issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Reverses denial of Karagan’s request for prejudgment interest and remands for a calculation of the amount of interest to which Karagan is entitled.

Fred C. Feitler, Mary Anna Feitler, and the Feitler Family Trust v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., J. Laurie Commercial Floors, LLC, d/b/a Jack Lauries Floor Designs, JM Woodworking Co.
17A04-1206-PL-297
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors on the question of the Feitlers’ personal responsibility, as that issue should go to trial. Agrees that neither J. Laurie Commercial Floors nor JM Woodworking can hold a mechanic’s lien against the real estate on which Fred and Mary Anna Feitler were building a home.

Cornelius Hooten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Cameron Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-PC-502
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

John Salter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1203-CR-275
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction following guilty plea.

In the Matter of C.C., (Minor Child), a Child in Need of Services; M.W., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1203-JC-127
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of 17-year-old C.C. as a child in need of services.

In the Matter of the Parent-Child Rel. of: K.E.G.-H. and D.G. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
51A01-1204-JT-174
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

LaQuinton Leonard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1203-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Cherie Solms v. Michael Solms (NFP)
27A02-1204-PO-279
Protective order. Reverses dismissal of petition for an order of protection against Michael Solms. Remands with instructions.

Brian Gale Waters v. Indiana Real Estate Commission, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1112-MI-1165
Miscellaneous. Reverses and remands with instructions to dismiss Waters’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Brandon Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, reverses public defender fee and remands for further proceedings.

Vincent O. Dates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1203-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Thomas Dudley and Barbara Dudley v. The Estate of Earl Studtmann (NFP)
46A03-1204-PL-147
Civil plenary. Reverses entry of summary judgment for the estate and remands for further proceedings.

James S. Shidler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A05-1204-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Adrian Lotaki v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1106-PC-284
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT