ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2010

September 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sarah Haag, et al. v. Mark Castro, The Indiana Youth Soccer Association, et al.
29A04-1001-CT-10
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Virginia Surety Co. Members of the Carmel Commotion Soccer Team traveled to Colorado for a soccer tournament. While in Colorado, the team decided to go on a white-water rafting trip as a team-building activity. While traveling to raft, the van collided with another vehicle and team members were injured. Virginia Surety argued that while the team was sanctioned to attend and compete at the tournament, the use of the van to go white-water rafting was not a use “in the business of the Named Insured” and Indiana Youth Soccer Association did not have knowledge of or authorize the rafting activity. Judge Riley dissents.  

Christopher Casady v. State of Indiana
53A01-0909-CR-431
Criminal. Rules trial court did not err in denying Casady’s motion to dismiss because he failed to show how he was harmed by the state filing additional charges and the subsequent dismissal of the original charges; the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions of 16 counts of Class D felony voyeurism; the warrants to search Casady’s camera and home were properly supported by probable cause; the trial court did not err in admitting evidence seized during execution of the warrants; Casady waived any argument that the videotapes admitted into evidence were unfairly prejudicial; and his 18-year sentence with 12 years suspended was not inappropriate.

D.C. v. K.C. (NFP)
45A03-0912-CV-609
Civil. Affirms trial court order granting modification of custody from father to mother.

John Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

William Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Adam L. Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.

Michael Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1002-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Myers to serve the remaining 4 years of his previously suspended sentence.

Timothy L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms trial court ruling that King serve 8 years of his previous sentence in the Department of Correction after revocation of probation and community corrections placement.

Joshua Peter Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for Class A felony attempted murder conviction, 35-year sentence for Class A felony kidnapping conviction, and 12-year sentence for Class B felony attempted escape conviction – all to be served concurrently. Rules trial court’s statement regarding victim was harmless error.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1002-PC-60
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year sentence Newbry received in a companion case.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-126  
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year term Newbry received in a companion case.

Angela M. (Greene) McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1004-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms 3-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery.

Christine Starbuck v. Vigo County Public Library (NFP)
93A02-1001-EX-67
Civil. Affirms order of full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board denying Starbuck’s application for adjustment of claim.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT