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. 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