ILNews

Opinions Oct. 31, 2011

October 31, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas J. Ostrowski and Phyllis Ostrowski v. Everest Healthcare Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Merrillville Dialysis Center, and Family Mobile Medical Services, Inc.
45A03-1012-CT-645
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of defendants Everest Healthcare Indiana and Family Mobile Medical Services on Thomas Ostrowski’s suit for negligence against the building owner and the EMT’s employer after he was injured by a door opening and hitting his hand. The trial court did not err in giving the sudden emergency instruction or in permitting the defendants’ expert witness to testify. The lay witness did not improperly testify as an expert witness.  

Lorenzo Surrisi, Individually and d/b/a City Tavern and Joette Surrisi, Individually and d/b/a City Tavern v. James D. Bremner
50A04-1102-MF-83
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses trial court order that stated the Surrisis’ real and personal business property were sold at a sheriff’s sale to Bremner. The sheriff’s bill of sale which included the business personal property is faulty because according to the praecipe of the sale, notice of sale and tax documentation, only the real property was subject to the sheriff’s sale. Remands for vacation of the court order indicating the sale included the business personal property and for the trial court to determine the amount of compensation due to the Surrisis for the loss of their business personal property.

Luigi Amalfitano v. State of Indiana
48A02-1102-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery with serious bodily injury, Class D felony exploitation of an endangered adult and Class D felonies financial exploitation of an endangered adult, theft, obtaining a prescription by fraud and possession of a controlled substance. The court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding Amalfitano’s criminal history and violation of a position of trust with the victim to be aggravators, and his sentence is not inappropriate given that he kept an elderly woman locked in a utility closet for six months so he could steal her benefits and prescription drugs.

Joseph Simmons v. State of Indiana
40A05-1101-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Simmons’ conviction of Class C felony OWI does not constitute an ex post facto violation. There is sufficient evidence to support his conviction and his eight-year sentence is appropriate.

Terry C. Winslow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

Raymond Scebbi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A01-1103-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child solicitation.

S.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-JV-190
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class C felony attempted robbery if committed by an adult.

Patrick Black v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1103-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for various felony drug offenses and misdemeanors resisting law enforcement, false informing and battery.

Christopher D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after driving privileges have been forfeited for life and the revocation of probation.

M.B. and M.F. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-300
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

1991 Investors Limited Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Pamela T. Hennessy, Joseph J. Hennessy, et al. v. Citizens Financial Services, FSB (NFP)
71A03-1105-MF-193
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms personal judgment entered against the defendants 1991 Investors Limited Partnership and the Hennessys and the motion to correct error in a suit for failure to pay a loan.

Zachary Krachinski v. Cindy Schoof, Century 21 - 1st Team, Inc., Lon F. Terry, and Horizon Bank, N.A. (NFP)
46A03-1009-CC-498
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Schoof and Century 21 in Krachinski’s complaint alleging fraud and misrepresentation of property.

Tracey L. Routon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1104-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony conspiracy to commit possession of methamphetamine in excess of three grams.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 14 cases and vacated transfer to one case for the week ending Oct. 28.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT