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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT