ILNews

Opinions Sept. 24, 2013

September 24, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions  Sept 24, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jerome Milian v. State of Indiana
79A02-1302-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of Jerome Milian’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to Class A felony dealing cocaine. The court concluded that Milian, who was represented at his pro se hearing by stand-by counsel, received multiple advisements and admonishments from the trial court regarding his rights, and in particular, his right to representation by counsel. Milian failed to meet his burden of proving that he was subjected to manifest injustice.

Indiana Commissioner of Insurance Stephen W. Robertson, on Behalf of the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Kimi Clark, Personal Representative of the Estate of William Troy Clark, Deceased (NFP)
49A04-1212-CT-652
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Reverses the trial court’s award of $465,000 in damages and remands with instructions to clarify the amount of total damages, the set off for $550,000 in awards received in settlements with other defendants and what damages, if any, were awarded for William Troy Clark’s lost-earning capacity.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Violet Whitaker, Deceased, Stephen Whitaker and Damian Whitaker v. Ferdinand Clervi, Personal Representative (NFP)
49A02-1212-EU-1022
Estate. Affirms probate court order approving the verified closing statement for the estate of Violet Whitaker.

In the Matter of A.S.G., A.M.G., S.T.B., and A.G.B., Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, B.G., Mother, and S.B., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1304-JC-158
Juvenile. Affirms trial court determination that A.S.G, A.M.G., S.T.B and A.G.B. are children in need of services.

Ervin McClung v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1302-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor battery.

A.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1212-JV-980
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Kevin Cortez Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1212-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and habitual offender.

Angela R. Reed v. Sally L. Ashcraft (NFP)
02A03-1301-PO-23
Protective order. Affirms dismissal of protection order Angela Reed received against Sally Ashcraft.
 
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., v. The Supervised Estate of Richard C. Holman (NFP)
29A05-1212-ES-660
Estate. Affirms probate court order denying Reverse Mortgage Solutions’ motion to vacate its prior order granting the successor personal representative’s petition to approve the sale of the real estate and close the supervised estate of Richard Holman.

Dillon Grissell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1304-CR-302
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for conviction of Class D felony theft.

Nancy Harney v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc., B.R. Associates, Inc., and Citizens Bank of Michigan City Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1304-CT-184
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of Denny’s and co-defendants and remands with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

John Aikman v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A04-1209-OV-470
Local ordinance violation. Affirms a trial court injunction barring John Aikman from owning or caring for animals in Marion County after numerous dogs were seized from his home for violations of Chapter 531 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County Indianapolis/Marion, Indiana.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1302-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms revocation of in-home detention.

John E. Wall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1211-CR-508
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent.

Shawn Rigsby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-120
Criminal. Reverses sentence that includes a 1999 habitual offender enhancement, which followed a prior sentence that included a habitual offender enhancement, and remands to the trial court with instructions for resentencing that does not include consecutive habitual offender sentences.

Indiana Tax Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Monday.
Shelby County Assessor v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. #6637-02

49T10-1112-TA-96
Property Tax. Affirms final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review for the assessment of a CVS drugstore in Shelbyville at about $2.375 million in 2007 and about $2.46 million for 2008. The assessor’s argument that a sale-leaseback contract’s rental agreement of $27.20 per square foot should have resulted in an assessment of about $3.77 million could not overcome the board’s finding that CVS presented evidence of probative value that it used such contracts as a means to generate additional business capital, and that the assessor’s approach likely captured more than the real value of the property. The court held that the assessor essentially asks the court to reweigh evidence, which it may not do.

Indiana Supreme Court issued no opinions before IL deadline Tuesday.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.

 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT