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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT