ILNews

Opinions Oct. 15, 2010

October 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Southlake Community Mental Health Center, Inc., et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point, Indiana, et al.
45A03-1002-MI-81
Miscellaneous. Reverses determination that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point correctly concluded that Southlake and Watertower South’s proposed use of a certain parcel was inappropriate for the parcel’s zoning classification. The original appeal of the Crown Point Plan Commission’s decision by Feather Rock Professional Office Park was untimely. Remands with instructions to grant Southlake and Watertower’s certiorari petition.

Ritzert Co., Inc., et al. v. United Fidelity Bank, Tyme Properties, LLC, et al.
82A04-1001-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for United Fidelity Bank on the contractors’ claim for unjust enrichment. United, which made no request, express or implied, to the contractors for their services did not otherwise owe a duty to the contractors.  

Travis Cordell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1005-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Travis D. Rutherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1005-PC-278
Criminal. Affirms guilty plea to, conviction of, and sentence for Class D felony voyeurism.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., et al.; C.Y. v. Montgomery County D.C.S. (NFP)
54A01-1005-JT-229
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Mental Health Proceedings of D.J. (NFP)
29A04-1003-MH-205
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing D.J. to a mental-health facility as an inpatient.

Christopher Rudolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms 25-year sentence for aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and carrying a handgun without a license under one cause number; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, dealing in marijuana, and resisting law enforcement under another cause number.

Crystal G. Huesman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1002-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms determination that Huesman violated her probation.

Dametrick M. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT