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

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT