ILNews

Opinions Oct. 4, 2010

October 4, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald L. Pruitt v. State of Indiana
55A01-0912-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms denial of Pruitt’s motion to suppress, who was charged with operating a motor vehicle after driving privileges had been forfeited for life as a Class C felony. The lack of limiting language in Indiana Code Section 9-30-10-17 supports that Indiana Code sections 9-21-18-1 to 9-21-18-15 do not bar law enforcement officers from investigating violations in private parking lots in the absence of a contractual agreement with the property owner. Concludes the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Pruitt for driving without headlights.

SPCP Group, LLC v. Dolson, Inc., et al.
19A01-0912-CV-604
Civil. Affirms denial of SPCP Group’s motion for partial summary judgment and grant of Holland’s cross-motion for summary judgment on SPCP’s complaint seeking foreclosure of a mortgage on Holland’s real property. The undisputed facts establish that the mortgage SPCP seeks to foreclose inaccurately and inadequately describes the debt it purports to secure, and as a result, SPCP cannot establish an essential element of its claim.

Andy Alafogianis, et al. v. Joseph Guffey, et al. (NFP)
33A01-1003-PL-98
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Guffey in his suit for the balances owed on each account held by Alafogianis for work Guffey’s companies completed in Alafogianis’ restaurants.

T.J. and Ginger Richard v. Janet Egolf (NFP)
25A04-1001-SC-28
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Eglof on the Richards’ claim of being sold an allegedly lame horse, and in favor of Eglof in her counterclaim regarding costs to care for the horse when the Richards left it with her.

Qwinces LLC, et al. v. Viking Hardwoods, Inc., et al. (NFP)
17A03-1002-CC-102
Civil collections. Reverses default judgment and damages award in favor of Viking Hardwoods in their suit alleging breaches of contract against Quinces and remands for further proceedings.
 
R.R. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1227
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

Bettye Alvis v. Professional Account Service, Inc. (NFP)
84A04-1004-PL-253
Civil plenary. Reverses order awarding Alvis $500 in attorney’s fees and no costs following summary judgment in her favor on her wage payment claim. Remands with instructions to award Alvis $6,460 in attorney fees and $364.17 in costs.

Adoption of W.G.; D.M. and K.M. v. T.G. (NFP)
67A05-1001-AD-105
Adoption. Reverses order granting father T.G.’s motion to set aside the grandparents’ adoption of W.G. based on fraud. Remands with instructions to reinstate the adoption decree.

Jamie Keys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-101
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Curtis D. Holiday v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1005-CR-603
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Wayne Jewell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1002-PC-115
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Wayne Miller v. Jennifer Shue (NFP)
34A04-1002-SC-105
Small claims. Affirms small-claims judgment in favor of Shue for $3,600 and remands for the court to determine an amount of appellate attorney’s fees and costs to which Shue is entitled.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied transfer to 27 cases for the week ending Sept. 30.
 

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