ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2013

November 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Debra Minott, Faith Laird, Patti Bailey v. Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc.; Parkview Residential Care Center, L.L.C.; Parke County Residential Care Center, L.L.C., et al.
49A05-1305-PL-213
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of state’s request for restitution for damages paid. The Nov. 8 order was not a final judgment because it did not address the issue of restitution. Holds the law firms and creditor banks in this case are judgment creditors. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael P. Stafford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1304-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 120-year sentence for Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony burglary, Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Michael Schepers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of Schepers’ motion to suppress and remands for retrial.

Michael Kelley v. State of Indana (NFP)
45A04-1303-PC-161
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

David Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1301-PC-3
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony Tsikouris, Diann Tsikouris, and the 601 Building, Inc., v. LaPorte Savings Bank (NFP)
46A05-1212-MF-659
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of bank on its foreclosure action. However, the amount of the damages was erroneous, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion when it denied the motion to correct error. Additionally, the motion to correct error should have been granted as to the award of attorney fees. Remands with instructions to conduct a hearing on damages and attorney fees.

State of Indiana v. Jerramy Bushong (NFP)
67A04-1304-CR-196
Criminal. Affirms denial of the state’s motion to correct error, which challenged the grant of a motion to suppress evidence.

Jeffrey V. McCloud v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-322
Criminal. Double jeopardy principles embodied in the continuing crime doctrine bar entry of two judgments of conviction against McCloud for resisting law enforcement. The trial court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of statutory authority against McCloud for possession of paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor. McCloud’s 47-year sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). Remands with instructions to vacate his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor and to enter a sentence within the authorized statutory range on McCloud’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT