ILNews

Opinions Oct. 9, 2012

October 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Ralph Jennings d/b/a A Cut Above Tree Service v. Terrance Kinnard (NFP)
49A05-1203-CC-117
Collections. Reverses and remands trial court’s grant of relief to Kinnard from a default judgment of $4,189.22 for the plaintiff.
 
Jeffrey Allen Rowe v. Bruce Lemon, et al
49A02-1204-PL-344
Civil Plenary. Court of Appeals affirms in part, reverses in part and remands the summary judgment denying an Indiana Department of Correction inmate kosher meals. The court ruled the DOC did not establish either that the vegan meal plan is kosher or that the inmate lacked sincere religious reasons for requesting a kosher diet.    

Paul R. Semenick v. State of Indiana
49A02-1111-CR-1035
Criminal. Court of Appeals reverses conviction for criminal trespass finding insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The court ruled that the state failed in its burden to prove material elements of criminal trespass because it did not present evidence disavowing the individual’s contractual interest in being on the property and did not establish the breadth of an occasional part-time contract employee’s authority.

Jon E. Garcia v. State of Indiana
20A04-1202-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony criminal recklessness, holding that the trial court properly denied Garcia’s motion for a directed verdict. The court held that a car meets the definition of “a place where people are likely to gather” under I.C. 35-42-2-2(c)(3)(A), the criminal recklessness statute involving discharge of a firearm that creates a risk of bodily injury.  

American Cold Storage, et al v. The City of Boonville
87A01-1112-PL-610
Civil plenary/annexation. Divided court reverses annexation and remands to the trial court, holding that the trial court erred in counting separate state-owned parcels that were purchased to build State Road 62 rather than counting the road as a single parcel under the remonstrance statute, thereby making it impossible for remonstrators to satisfy the 65 percent rule.

Thomson, Inc. n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc., Technicolor Inc., and Technicolor Limited v. Continental Casualty Co., Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., et al.
49A02-1202-PL-80
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the trial court did not err in basing its judgment on comity in deference to a California decision on the matter, but the court did not address the plaintiff’s other arguments.

Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana
29A05-1202-CR-77
Criminal. Divided court affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error for misdemeanor sentences that exceeded the statutory authority, finding that Koontz waived any error in his sentence by consenting to it as part of a plea agreement.
 
Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund v. Paul Bryson
49A04-1201-MI-2
Miscellaneous/disability. Divided court affirms a trial court decision setting aside a PERF ruling that Bryson was entitled to Class 2 impairment disability benefits and finding Bryson instead entitled to Class 1 benefits. The appeals court held that the trial court did not err because a pre-existing condition did not impair his abilities to perform job duties as a firefighter and that his covered impairment is a direct result of three on-duty personal injuries.

Theothus Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1203-CR-137
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s 65-year aggregate resentence on Class A felony convictions of attempted murder and attempted robbery and Class B felony convictions of burglary and being a habitual offender.

Marion Spencer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1204-CR-137
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of criminal recklessness while using a vehicle and remands to the trial court for correction of the judgment of conviction and CCS.

Norman Trent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1202-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Bobbie Buckles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A05-1206-CR-300
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class C felony possession of precursors and Class B felony possession of methamphetamine.

John Ray Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1111-CR-533
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Carl L. Johnson v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Williams Systems LLC (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-205
Executive administration/unemployment. Affirms determination of the Department of Workforce Development that Johnson was not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Victor Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-CR-860
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of robbery and attempted robbery as Class B felonies.
 

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