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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT