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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT