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. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT