`

Opinions

Opinions

ARTICLES

Opinions Feb. 23, 2018

Indiana Supreme Court
Jacob O. Robinson v. State of Indiana

18S-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms Jacob Robinson’s convictions of attempted residential entry as a Class D felony, resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony and his admission to being a habitual substance offender, as well as his three-year sentence on the attempted residential entry charge. Finds the Floyd Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s motion for a continuance. Also finds Robinson’s sentence for attempted residential entry is not inappropriate.


Read More

Opinions Feb. 22, 2018

Indiana Court of Appeals
D.Z. v. State of Indiana

32A05-1708-JV-1907
Juvenile. Reverses D.Z.’s delinquency adjudication for an act that would have been criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Finds the juvenile court abused its discretion when it admitted D.Z.’s incriminating statements to a school official, who was working in cooperation with law enforcement. Judge John Baker concurs with separate opinion. Judge Elain Brown dissents with separate opinion.
Read More

Opinions Feb. 21, 2018

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason H. Bader v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

79A02-1706-CR-1404
Criminal. Affirms Jason H. Bader’s 22-year aggregate sentence, with 16 years in the Indiana Department of Correction, four years in community corrections and two years suspended to probation, for his convictions of dealing in methamphetamine, dealing in a synthetic drug or lookalike substance and possession of paraphernalia. Finds Bader has not sustained his burden of establishing his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Read More

Opinions Feb. 20, 2018

Indiana Court of Appeals

City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc.
49A04-1612-PL-2784
Civil plenary. Reverses the grant of summary judgment in favor of Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc. on the City of Hammond’s complaint for declaratory judgment alleging violations of Article 4, Sections 22 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Finds Indiana Code section 36-1-20-5 must be stricken in its entirety. Remands for further proceedings.


Read More

Opinions Feb. 15, 2018

Indiana Supreme Court
Mathew W. McCallister v. State of Indiana

87S00-1609-LW-497
Life without parole. Affirms Mathew McCallister’s convictions of murder and conspiracy to commit murder and his sentence to life without parole. Finds McCallister’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Also finds the Warrick Superior Court did not commit reversible error in admitting evidence. Finally, finds McCallister’s LWOP sentence is neither unlawful nor improper.
Read More

Opinions Feb. 14, 2018

Indiana Supreme Court
Don H. Gunderson and Bobbie J. Gunderson, Co-Trustees of the Don H. Gunderson Living Trust v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.

46S03-1706-PL-423
Civil plenary. Affirms the LaPorte Superior Court’s ruling that the state holds title to the Lake Michigan shores in trust for the public. Reverses the trial court’s decision that private property interests here overlap with those of the state. Finds the boundary separating public trust land from privately-owned riparian land along the shores of Lake Michigan is the common-law ordinary high water mark and, absent legislative conveyance, the state retains exclusive title up to that boundary. Justice Geoffrey Slaughter did not participate.


Read More

Opinions Feb. 13, 2018

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:
David Thorne v. Member Select Insurance Company

17-1377
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Magistrate Judge John. E. Martin.
Civil. Affirms the denial of Member Select Insurance Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Finds there was sufficient evidence to prove David Thorne was a resident of the house for purposes of his insurance policy. Also finds there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine damages, and the district court did not misinterpret the policy’s loss coverage provision in evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award.
Read More