Opinions Oct. 4, 2010

October 4, 2010
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

Bettye Alvis v. Professional Account Service, Inc. (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Curtis D. Holiday v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony possession of cocaine.

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

Wayne Miller v. Jennifer Shue (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit