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. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT