ILNews

Opinions Sept. 15, 2010

September 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Alexander Gatzimos, M.D. v. Boone County and State of Indiana
06A05-0911-CV-664
Civil. Grants the state’s motion to dismiss Dr. Gatzimos’ appeal of the trial court order denying his petition for expungement. Remands to the trial court to allow Gatzimos the opportunity to present admissible evidence as to whether his charges were dismissed because of mistaken identity; no offense was actually committed; or there was an absence of probable cause.

William Nolan v. City of Indianapolis
49A02-1002-CT-192
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis. The COA holding in Nolan’s criminal appeal that his arrest was lawful precludes him from re-litigating that issue in a civil case brought by him for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Phyllis Woodsmall, et al. v. Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc.
84A01-1001-PL-33
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment denying homeowners injunctive relief on Woodsmall and the other’s nuisance claim. The evidence doesn’t lead solely to the conclusion that Lost Creek used its property to the detriment of the homeowners.

Joshua H. Field v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1003-CR-262
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor intimidation and remands with instructions to vacate this conviction and sentence.

N.L., Alleged to be CHINS; B.L. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1002-JC-140
Juvenile. Affirms determination that N.L. is a child in need of services.

Kyle Kiplinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1004-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for murder imposed during a re-sentencing hearing.

Michael Hay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Dennis Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1001-PC-102
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Quentin A. Spencer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1002-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies fraud and theft.

Neil A. Short v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1002-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms conviction of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony.

George D. Harding, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1003-CR-202
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as Class C felonies.

Lusako G. Musopole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1002-CR-71
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Maurits Wiersema v. Lisa (Wiersema) Bauman (NFP)
02A03-0912-CV-571
Civil. Affirms valuation of Wiersema’s IMAGI holdings at the time of final separation at $1,000,000.00, including 2007 tax refunds in the marital estate, assigning half of the Sycamore Hills membership to Bauman, assigning the Bauman Investment to Bauman, and assessing GAL fees. Reverses decision to include unvested portions of Wiersema’s IMA 401(k) in the marital estate and failure to assign liability for half of certain property taxes paid post-filing by Wiersema to Bauman. Remands to revise the final dissolution order so as not to include the unvested portions of Wiersema’s 401(k) in the marital estate, assign half of the property tax liability to Bauman, and recalculate the distribution of the marital estate as appropriate.

Robert Coslet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT