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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT