`

Opinions May 1, 2019

May 1, 2019
KEYWORDS Opinions

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.W. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., et al.; In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.M. v. Community Health Network, Inc.

19S-MH-264
Mental health. Dismiss T.W. and A.M.’s appeals of their commitment orders as moot without addressing sufficiency of the evidence or waiver. Finds the commissioner lacked authority to enter the commitment orders, and the orders provide inadequate assurance that the judge was presented with, reviewed and approved the temporary commitment orders. Also finds that under these circumstances, where the orders concern periods that have expired, remanding those orders to the Marion Superior Court for its review serves no apparent purpose. 

Wednesday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals 
Dunham's Athleisure Corp. v. Keith Shepherd

18A-PL-2892
Civil plenary. Reverses the Wabash Superior Court’s denial of Dunham’s Athleisure Corp.’s motion for summary judgment on Keith Shepherd’s complaint alleging Dunham’s negligence in the sale of a firearm to a third party. Finds the trial court erred in its denial of Dunham’s summary judgment motion and that the store is immune from liability regarding Shepherd’s injuries that resulted after his girlfriend shot him with a gun she purchased at Dunham’s.  

Jerry Emerson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-PC-1687
Post-conviction. Affirms the denial of Jerry Emerson’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds Emerson has not demonstrated that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Also finds the post-conviction court did not err. 

Aryan Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-2604
Criminal. Affirms Aryan Taylor’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. Finds the Marion Superior Court did not err in indicating on the sentencing order that Count I, Level 6 felony kidnaping, and Count II, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, were “dismissed.” However, finds the plain language of Trial Rule 41 (B) indicates that unlike general dismissals which allow for the refiling of the dismissed charges, dismissals pursuant to Trial Rule 41(B) act as an adjudication on the merits, precluding the refiling of charges. Therefore, remands the matter to the trial court with instructions for the court to amend the sentencing order to indicate Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to TR 41(B). 


 

ADVERTISEMENT