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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT