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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT