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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT