ILNews

Opinions Sept. 13, 2012

September 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana
35S02-1112-CR-704
Criminal. Cannot conclude that as a matter of law the defendants engaged in no conduct nor effected any result in Indiana that was an element of either the theft or the counterfeiting charge. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying sub silentio Lin’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants’ airsoft gun is a written instrument within the meaning of the statute and therefore reverses the trial court’s dismissal of the counterfeiting charges. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the theft and corrupt business influence charges.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter
02A03-1109-DR-401
Domestic relation/Rehearing. Clarifies holding that Jodi Heeter waived her arguments on the motions for modification of support on appeal. She is not entitled to reconsideration of the motions by the trial court.  

Ann L. Miller and Richard A. Miller v. Glenn L. Dobbs, D.O., and Partners in Health

15A05-1108-CT-431
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Dr. Dobbs and Partners in Health. Where, as here, the proposed complaint was delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the Department of Insurance within the statute of limitations, but did not contain the filing and processing fees, and the fees were paid shortly after the plaintiffs were informed of their inadvertent failure to pay the fees, such complaints should be determined on their merits. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Brown concurs in result in a separate opinion; Judge Vaidik dissents.

Michael Patrick Knott and Andrew John Knott v. State of Indiana
28A04-1203-PL-122
Civil plenary. Affirms issuance of order of appropriation and appointment of appraisers in the state’s complaint to acquire a portion of the Knotts’ land to construct Interstate 69. The federal statutes upon which the Knotts’ objections depend do not concern the acquisition of property, but are related to collateral issues concerning the interstate project.  

In Re the Adoption of C.R.R. and S.A.R.; W.E.R. v. D.M.T. (NFP)
49A02-1201-AD-45
Adoption. Affirms order granting the petition filed by D.M.T. to adopt C.R.R. and S.A.R.

Carl S. Piatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1202-CR-116
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and remands with instructions.

Delon Churchill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1111-CR-1108
Criminal. Affirms admission of certain evidence and that there was no prosecutorial misconduct. Affirms Class B felony robbery. Remands with instructions the trial court vacate the four Class B felony confinement convictions and sentences. Judge Bradford dissents.

Parrin J. Garner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony robbery.

Clay R. Firestone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1201-PC-32
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions to assign the habitual offender enhancement to one of Firestone’s convictions.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT