ILNews

Opinions Sept. 30, 2010

September 30, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
Indiana Supreme Court

James A. Carr v. State of Indiana
25S04-1004-CR-219
Criminal. Reverses conviction of murder and remands for a new trial. Carr’s custodial statements, taken by police in disregard of his invocation of his right to counsel, were erroneously admitted and that error wasn’t harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. James G. Lucas
91A05-1003-CR-247
Criminal. Reverses and remands Lucas’s motion to suppress results from a Datamaster chemical breath test in jail, following two failed portable breath tests in the field. Rules a portable breath test mouthpiece is not a foreign substance that will act to invalidate the results of a Datamaster.

In Re: The General Power of Attorney of Xenia S. Miller, et al. v. William Irwin Miller and Sarla Kalsi
03A01-0912-CV-586
Civil. Affirms the trial court in most of its findings: that it properly accepted the accountings, released the attorneys-in-fact from all liability, and declined Hugh Miller’s attorney-fee request. Concludes the attorneys-in-fact are not entitled to their attorney fees, and reverses the judgment to that extent only.
 
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Anita G. Adkins and Wayne Adkins
29A02-0912-CV-1270
Civil. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Anita and Wayne Adkins. Cincinnati argues the trial court erred in determining Adkins did not breach the terms of her insurance policy when she settled with a tortfeasor without notice to or consent of Cincinnati.
 
Joshua Konopasek v. State of Indiana
25A03-1003-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery causing serious bodily injury, a Class C felony. Rules that while evidence about Konopasek’s criminal record should not have been admitted, any error was harmless, and the state’s evidence was sufficient to prove battery and disprove Konopasek’s claim of self-defense.
 
William Long v. State of Indiana
41A04-0912-CR-743
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.
 
Anthony E. Neukam v. State of Indiana
16A01-1002-CR-50
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class D felony criminal mischief. Rules witness’s pre-trial identification of Neukam was not impermissibly suggestive and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey v. Kelly Eugene Tharp and Papa John’s U.S.A., Inc.
29A02-1003-CT-283
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial of appellants‘ motion for relief from judgment. Concludes that the injustice suffered by appellants far outweighs any interests that appellees and society might have in the finality of litigation.
 
Leon Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
 
Daniel R. Fuquay, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-0906-PC-270
Post-conviction. Reverses and remands denial of post-conviction motion to set aside guilty plea to Class D felony possession of cocaine on grounds that the plea was involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
 
Joseph M. Shortridge v. Alice Shortridge (NFP)
55A01-0912-CV-595
Civil. Affirms ex parte protective order Alice Shortridge obtained while Alice and Joseph Shortridge were in the process of dissolving their marriage.
 
Chad Delphia v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1002-CR-149
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and trial court’s decision to terminate Delphia’s in-house detention.
 
Bonnie Elaine Rock v. Easterday Construction Co., Inc. (NFP)
50A03-0911-CV-534
Civil. Affirms judgment awarding damages to Easterday Construction Co., Inc. and trial court’s determination that a contract existed between the parties.
 
Marc Stults v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0902-PC-166
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Karl J. Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1002-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Robert Hrezo, et al. v. City of Lawrenceburg, et al.
15A01-0907-CV-338
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of the city’s motion for summary judgment on Hrezo’s breach-of-contract claim, and reverses the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment on Hrezo’s promissory estoppel claim.
 
Carmelita Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-387
Criminal. Affirms convictions of battery and criminal trespass, both as Class A misdemeanors.
 
Craig Britt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A04-1001-CR-86
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B battery.
 
T.K. v. Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, Unemployment Insurance Review Board, and Tippecanoe County (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-404
Civil. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board’s denial of unemployment benefits.
 
Jennifer Bealmear v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1003-CR-101
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.
 
Calcar Quarries v. Dennis Bledsoe (NFP)
93A02-1004-EX-397
Civil. Affirms decision of the Worker’s Compensation Board to award Bledsoe worker’s compensation benefits and remands because Bledsoe is entitled only to the statutory 5 percent increase in his award.
 
Jacobo Sanchez-Venegas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A05-1001-CR-107
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation.
 
Shawn Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-70
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.
 
Paternity of R.W.B. IV; K.K. v. R.W.B. III (NFP)
78A01-1001-JP-79
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment granting father’s petition for custody modification.
 
The Osler Institute, Inc. v. Richard C. Miller, et al. (NFP)
84A05-1003-PL-237
Civil. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of Osler’s complaint.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

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