ILNews

Opinions Oct. 19, 2011

October 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Alan Massey v. State of Indiana
49A05-1012-PC-808
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Even though the jury was improperly instructed regarding the elements of voluntary manslaughter, Massey wasn’t entitled to the voluntary manslaughter instruction because his girlfriend’s words ending their relationship do not constitute sufficient provocation to induce sudden heat. He also failed to carry his burden to show that the sentencing issue was significant.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC v. William Boyer
45A03-1011-CT-598
Civil tort. Affirms award of $300,000 in damages to William Boyer following his complaint for medical malpractice. The trial court properly denied the Weinberger entities’ motion for change of judge; did not abuse its discretion when it failed to strike jurors for cause; the testimony on Weinberger’s breach of his standard of care, the result of Boyer’s EKG, and evidence of Weinberger’s flight and absence from the country were properly admitted; and the jury award was not excessive. Affirms in all other respects.

Carolyn S. Baird v. State of Indiana
82A01-1106-CR-185
Criminal. Affirms convictions of infractions for operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility, failure to register and failure to have the proper license for operating a motorcycle. The evidence was sufficient to support these convictions. Reverses her conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended with a prior conviction because there was insufficient evidence. Remands with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser included offense of driving while suspended, a Class A infraction.

Barker Industrial Park, Inc., Clara Barker and Charles E. Barker v. Ken Cut Lawn Service, Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1104-PL-201
Civil plenary. Reverses attorney fee award to the Bakers and remands for recalculation. Also on remand, the trial court should explain its prejudgment interest calculation and correct its total judgment calculation.

Marquinn McGruder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors carrying a handgun without a license and possession of marijuana.

Zachary Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-1143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Remy Inc. v. Ice Miller LLP and Kathy S. Kiefer (NFP)
49A02-1012-CT-1419
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Ice Miller and Kiefer on Remy’s legal malpractice claim.

Jeffrey J. Whitmer v. Nancy J. Whitmer (NFP)
85A02-1103-DR-283
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the order that set aside substantial sums to Nancy following the sale of property at auction for expenses she claimed to have incurred, as most of the expenses she requested were either untimely raised or were an improper attempt to relitigate the equal property distribution. Remands with instructions.

Danny L. Slaven v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1101-PC-116
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part the denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for resentencing.

Darren B. Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1103-PC-154
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

K.B.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1104-JV-251
Juvenile. Affirms order placing K.B.S. at a private residential facility after the juvenile court found she committed what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion if committed by an adult.

Christopher Davies v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1103-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms order Davies serve the 18-month balance of his suspended sentence following a probation violation.

Kevin Legg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-76
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony criminal confinement.

James Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-PC-152
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Sergio Esqueda v. Alfredo and Maria Ponce (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-476
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Valentin Jaramillo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1103-PC-125
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Rumero Ziebell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1012-PC-694
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part the denial of Ziebell’s petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for the post-conviction court to order the habitual offender enhancement in the murder case to be served concurrent with the habitual offender enhancement in the drug case.

Ayron Saylors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1102-PC-99
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT