Opinions Oct. 29, 2012

October 29, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following are not-for-publication opinions released by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Betty J. Angel v. Kent H. Powelson and Marjorie A. Powelson
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting part of the Powelsons’ summary judgment motion on Angel’s claims of reformation of a deed and adverse possession. The undisputed evidence shows that both Angel and the Powelsons were granted an easement to use the roadway and both used it for ingress and egress purposes. The evidence also supports Angel’s claim for reformation of a deed is barred by laches.

Shiloh Jones v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Vacates the convictions and sentences for Class A misdemeanors battery and domestic battery due to double jeopardy and affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony domestic battery. Jones’ conviction for criminal confinement did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. The amended sentence imposed by the judge and comments by the prosecutor did not constitute fundamental error.

Aaron Shelton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count of possession of methamphetamine and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, all Class D felonies.

Cheryl E. Webb f/k/a Cheryl E. Wilder and G. Cameron Taylor v. The Bank of New York Mellon (NFP)
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms order denying Wilder’s and Taylor’s motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. Remands with instructions that the trial court recalculate the amount to award to the bank consistent with this opinion. Chief Judge Margret Robb dissents.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?