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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT