Opinions Oct. 31, 2013

October 31, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark Suesz, individually and on behalf of a class v. Med-1 Solutions LLC
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Suesz’s complaint that Med-1 Solutions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after obtaining a favorable judgment against him in Marion County Small Claims Court in Pike Township because he neither lived nor signed the contract in that township. Small claim courts are not judicial districts for purposes of the FDCPA. Judge Posner dissents.

Katherine Cerajeski, guardian for Walter Cerajeski v. Greg Zoeller, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, et al.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. Reverses dismissal of lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of part of the Indiana Unclaimed Property Act on the ground it authorizes the state to confiscate private property without any compensation to the owner. Interest on a bank account is considered property the owner is entitled to claim.

Indiana Supreme Court
Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of modifying the remand instructions to expand them since the judge who originally sentenced Bowen is no longer on the bench. Denies Bowen’s request that the case be remanded for imposition of concurrent sentences.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gary Tibbs v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, three counts of Class B felony child molesting and one count each of Class D felonies intimidation and child solicitation. The prosecutor’s comments did not amount to fundamental error as the comment was merely one upon the evidence, which is permitted during closing argument.

Michael R. Houston v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine due to insufficient evidence. The state did not prove Houston had constructive possession of the drug.

A.C. v. N.J.
Domestic relation. Reverses ruling that A.C. does not have standing to seek visitation of a child that her domestic partner gave birth to. Remands with instructions to reconsider A.C.’s request for visitation under the standard set forth in third-party visitation cases. Affirms denial of request for joint custody.

Richard Prancik, b/n/f, Renee Prancik v. Oak Hill United School Corporation
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to Oak Hill on Prancik’s claim that the school corporation breached a duty to him when a fellow student assaulted him. The teacher was acting in accordance with reasonable protocol for supervising students at the time of the incident, neither she nor the school were on any kind of notice that K.M. could be violent, either generally or towards Prancik specifically, and he and Prancik were left unsupervised at most for a mere matter of minutes.

Courtney Glenn v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Glenn’s feet-dragging and multiple attempts to pull away from the arresting officer were forcible resistance, and her actions were likely to result in serious bodily injury. Finds no double jeopardy violations.

David Wise v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Dismisses Wise’s interlocutory appeal of the order denying his pre-trial motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding video recordings of video files found on his mobile phone. The motion to certify was deemed denied by operation of Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(e).

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication because the evidence is insufficient to establish that the intoxicated Thang alarmed another person within the meaning of the statute or endangered either his life or another person’s life.

George Small v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony battery by bodily waste.

James Tinzley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Gerald M. Joyce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In Re The Marriage of Brian C. Dickerson v. Shannon Dickerson (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms award of spousal maintenance to Shannon Dickerson; assignment of certain firearms to Shannon in the property division; finding that Brian Dickerson is in arrears in his child support obligation; conclusion that Shannon had not improperly diverted payments made pursuant to the provisional order; and conclusion that Brian’s military pension is not a marital asset. Remands with instructions to consider evidence and establish the amounts of Brian’s child support arrearage and the Lowe’s debt, the latter of which was assigned to Shannon.

In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal of CHINS finding as it is not a final appealable order.

Andre C. Greene v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony domestic battery.

Bryce Leighton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more, Class D felony auto theft and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of Custody of: L.T. and A.B., minor children, R.L. and P.L. v. A.B. and R.B. (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of the grandparents’ petition to modify custody.

Charles L. Hubbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender.

Kevin James Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

James Averitte v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor harassment.

Steven Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms the seven-year habitual substance offender enhancement of Wilson’s two-and-a-half year sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

In Re the Contempt of Dorothy Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms imposition of 180-day sentence for indirect contempt after not appearing as a trial witness in court.

Sharon Jasinski v. Mirian Brown (NFP)
Small claim. Affirms $6,000 judgment in favor of Brown in a small claims action to recover property damages and loss of use damages after an auto accident.

Steven L. O'Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Jeffrey E. Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Miscellaneous. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Howell’s claims and therefore erred when it denied Howell’s motions on jurisdictional grounds. Moreover, the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring program’s requirements that Howell admit guilt and/or submit to a polygraph violate the Fifth Amendment. Remands with instructions to enter an order granting Howell’s renewed motion for restoration of credit time and class and to enter an order enjoining the DOC from requiring Howell to incriminate himself as part of the SOMM program.

Lyle B. Steele v. Asbury Glen Homes (NFP)
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Asbury Glen Homes on its claim for damages and against Steele on his counterclaim for damages.

George Abel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues