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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT