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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT