Opinions Sept. 28, 2010

September 28, 2010
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.
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
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)
Civil. Affirms trial court order granting modification of custody from father to mother.

John Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

William Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Adam L. Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms 3-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery.

Christine Starbuck v. Vigo County Public Library (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues