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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT