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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT