ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2012

October 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Lisa J. Kane v. State of Indiana
30S04-1206-CR-372
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property and remands for retrial. The trial court improperly instructed the jury on the mental state required to convict Kane.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Nathaniel Kappel v. William Kappel, Judith Kappel, and Mark Kappel
32A01-1111-ES-526
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of the estate’s recovery of insurance proceeds, directive that William and Mark Kappel withdraw their claims against the estate, and the denial of the complaint for contribution. Also affirms denial of the request the estate pay William, Judith and Mark Kappel’s attorney fees. The probate court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous based on the evidence.

Boulder Acquisition Corp. (n/k/a Affiliated Computer Services, LLC), et al. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1202-EX-127
Agency appeal. Reverses liability administrative law judge’s decision to combine BAC’s unemployment experience account with all its subsidiaries’ accounts and in recalculating BAC and the subsidiaries’ contribution rates. BAC is not a successor employer to the subsidiaries under I.C. 22-4-10-6(a) or 22-4-11.5-7. Remands to the Department of Workforce Development to adjust their respective experience accounts accordingly and to refund any overpayment by BAC and/or the subsidiaries.

Mark Carter and John E. Carter, Co-Personal Rep. of the Estate of John O. Carter, M.D., Deceased v. Loretta Robinson, Individually and as Admin. of the Estate of John E. Robinson, Deceased
45A05-1110-CT-563
Civil tort. Affirms $550,000 verdict in favor of Loretta Robinson, individually and as administratix of the estate of John E. Robinson, deceased, following John Robinson’s complaint for medical malpractice. Concludes Dr. James Bryant’s expert opinion is based on a proper use of the differential etiology methodology, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Dr. Michael Kaufman as a witness in support of Carter. Denies Robinson’s request for attorney fees.

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, et al. v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC
93A02-1112-EX-1141
Agency appeal. Reverses approval by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission of a substitute natural gas purchase and sale agreement between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification. The utilities and industrial group’s claims are justiciable, the commission did not exceed its jurisdiction when it approved the contract, and the contract’s definition of retail end use customer inappropriately included industrial transportation customers even though the Legislature did not intend for these customers to be subject to the Substitute Natural Gas Act as retail end use customers. Chief Judge Robb concurs in part and dissents in part.

Kevin Reaves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of the Revocable Trust of Mary Ruth Moeder (NFP)
49A02-1205-TR-377
Trust. Affirms order modifying the trust agreement.

Thomas R. Clements v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-161
Criminal. Affirms denial of verified petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

State of Indiana v. Christopher Holloway (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-240
Criminal. Reverses revision of Holloway’s sentence and remands with instructions to reinstate the original sentence.

Demetriese Gunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony strangulation.
 

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