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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT