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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT