Opinions Dec. 28, 2016

Keywords Opinions
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
Stardust Ventures, LLC v. Gary Roberts and Teresa Roberts
33A01-1603-PL-604
Civil plenary. Reverses the Henry Circuit Court’s denial of Stardust Ventures LLC’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by Gary and Teresa Roberts to recover $75,000 paid to Stardust. Finds that the purchase agreement is a valid and binding contract between the parties and that Stardust did not waive its right to request arbitration. Remands to the trial court to enter an order compelling arbitration.

James Gilman v. State of Indiana
49A02-1601-CR-95
Criminal. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s decision to allow the state to reopen its case against James Gilman after closing argument. Finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the state to reopen the case and present evidence of Gilman’s knowledge of his arrest warrant.

 In the Matter of: V.G. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and R.G. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1605-JC-1071
Juvenile. Affirms the juvenile court’s adjudication of V.G. as a child in need of services. Finds that there is sufficient evidence to support the determination and that the court’s dispositional order complied with the statute.  

Aaron Morgan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
28A01-1608-CR-1781
Criminal. Affirms Aaron Morgan’s sentence to 2 ½ years in the Indiana Department of Correction for sexual battery as a Class D felony. Finds that the Green Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion.

Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
30A05-1511-PC-1942
Post conviction. Affirms the summary denial of Kevin J. Mamon’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds that Mamon did not present evidence to satisfy his burden of establishing the two prongs of an ineffective assistance claim, so the post-conviction court did not err in denying his requested relief.
 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}