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. 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