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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT