ILNews

Opinions Sept. 24, 2012

September 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Russell Oney
49A05-1204-CR-196
Criminal. Reverses and remands a trial court ruling that vacated a determination that a defendant was a habitual traffic violator, holding that even though one of the predicate offenses later was vacated in post-conviction relief, the BMV’s determination that Oney was a habitual traffic offender did not constitute manifest injustice.

Gregory Kirk v. State of Indiana
49A02-1110-CR-979
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Reverses conviction for conspiracy to commit dealing in a controlled substance and remands to the trial court to change sentence accordingly, holding that the court abused its discretion in admitting incriminating evidence of Kirk’s stepson’s statements and testimony regarding cell phone texts.

Marquis Dayvon Brooks v. Anderson Police Dept., City of Anderson, and Chris Barnett
48A02-1110-CT-1045
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that there are material issues of fact that should permit Brooks to pursue a civil tort for injuries sustained during his arrest, including bites from a police dog.

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. Geico General Insurance Company
02A04-1201-PL-5
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court dismissal of the hospital’s claim against the insurance company arising from its treatment of a patient injured in a Tennessee vehicle crash, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of a hospital lien against a judgment in another state unless the hospital has “enter[ed], in writing, upon the judgment docket where the judgment is recorded, the hospital’s intention to hold a lien upon the judgment, together with the amount claimed.”

Carlos Hale v. State of Indiana
49A02-1202-CR-83
Criminal. Affirms Class B felony robbery conviction based on a show-up identification and rebukes defendant for trying to use the fundamental error doctrine to raise an objection to evidence that defense counsel did not object to during the trial.

Thomas E. Lynch v. Arthur H. Huser (NFP)
49A05-1204-PL-162
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of Huser.

Sean Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-66
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Bryan Scholtes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1202-CR-78
Criminal. Affirms trial court revocation of probation.

Steven R. Brandenburg v. First Republic Mortgage Corporation (NFP)
29A02-1201-PL-70
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of First Republic.

Olga Markova v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-PC-908
Post-conviction relief. Affirms trial court denial of post-conviction relief that sought to set aside guilty plea to charge of Class D felony theft.

Justin L. Smart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1201-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony dealing in a look-alike substance.

Andrew Humphreys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1112-CR-677
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands, finding the court erred in applying a 16-year sentence for adjudication as a habitual offender, and instructed the court to specify which of Humphrey’s methamphetamine-related convictions is enhanced by the adjudication.

Troy Marie Cain Cornell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1201-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

Charles Davis, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1111-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine, a Class B felony.

Matthew M. Derrick v. Estate of Ruth F. Korn (NFP)
71A03-1204-ES-178
Probate/estate. Affirms probate court ruling disallowing Derrick’s claim of a life estate and payments of maintenance of real property.

David Brown d/b/a DB Express v. Utility Peterbilt of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A05-1202-PL-61
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of plaintiff’s motion to correct error challenging a grant of summary judgment in favor of Peterbilt.

 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT