ILNews

Opinions Sept. 4, 2012

September 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Nathan S. Berkman v. State of Indiana
45A04-1111-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a witness unavailable or in admitting the deposition testimony of another unavailable witness. Berkman’s sentence is not inappropriate as he had argued.

Hood's Gardens, Inc. v. Jason Young, Craig Mead d/b/a Discount Tree Excavation a/k/a D & E Tree Extraction
29A04-1201-PL-8
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of Hood’s Gardens’ declaratory judgment action involving Craig Mead, Jason Young and D&E Tree Extraction seeking to not have to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Young. The exclusivity provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act did not give the board exclusive jurisdiction to decide the simple contract construction issue raised in the trial court by HG. Remands for further proceedings.
 
Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana
42A04-1201-CR-49
Criminal. Reverses denial of Winn’s motion for bail bond reduction. While the severity of the 13 charges supports setting the bail at $25,000, the absence of any other factors to suggest Winn is a flight risk means the court should have granted his request to deposit an amount not less than 10 percent of bail under I.C. 35-33-8-3.2(a). Judge Brown concurs in part.

Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49A02-1111-CT-1031
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment to Hubler Nissan on Kesling’s Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, and fraud claims. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hubler made a representation that the car was safe to operate. Judge Friedlander dissents.

Dennis J. Rodenberg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1201-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony rape.

Damon T. Payne, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1204-CR-190
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed for three counts of Class D felony theft.

Charles B. Dietzen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-CR-1104
Criminal. Affirms order reinstating suspended sentence.

Victoria Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Olympia Shellman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1201-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

James W. Manhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A04-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to convert convictions from Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle while intoxicated to Class A misdemeanors.

Artrece D. Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1112-CR-693
Criminal. Affirms finding of violation and revocation of probation.

Noble Potter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1112-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony residential burglary and being a habitual offender.
 

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