ILNews

Opinions Oct. 20, 2011

October 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Otha S. Hamilton v. State of Indiana
49S02-1110-CR-621
Criminal. Affirms Hamilton’s conviction of Class A felony child molesting, but remands with instructions to revise his 50-year sentence to 35 years. Finds the circumstances of the case and his criminal history don’t support imposing the maximum sentence. Justice Dickson dissents.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Beth Ann Johnson, Mother of: Emily Johnson, Deceased Minor Child v. Lance Jacobs, Steven J. Cummins, Stacy Cummings, Lawrence County Board of Aviation Commissioners, Tony Newbold, Lawrence Co. Comm.
47A01-1102-CT-35
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for all the defendants in Johnson’s suit for damages in daughter Emily’s wrongful death. Her ex-husband Eric’s intentional criminal acts were a superseding intervening cause between any alleged negligence of the defendants and Emily’s death.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Shannon S. Barabas a/k/a Shannon Sheets Barabas, ReCasa Financial Group, LLC, and Rick A. Sanders
48A04-1004-CC-232
Civil collection. Grants rehearing to clarify reasoning for denying amended default judgment in favor of ReCasa. The correct interpretation of Indiana Code 32-29-8-3 is that the one-year redemption period begins after the sale of the property, not after Citimortgage first acquired an interest in the property. Affirms original opinion in all respects. Judge Brown dissents in part.

Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Nicholas George Bobis (NFP)
37A03-1104-MF-134
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms dismissal of Chase Home Finance’s complaint with prejudice.

Thedell Polk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1004-PC-295
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court
Grant County Assessor v. Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC
49T10-0908-TA-47
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review final determination valuing the Kerasotes Showplace 12 in Grant County at $4.2 million for the 2006 assessment. The Indiana board found that in determining what the subject property’s assessed value should be, the appraisal offered by Kerasotes was more persuasive than the appraisal offered by the assessor, and the Tax Court will not reweigh the evidence.
 

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT