The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 8 today (and 30 NFP)

« Ind. Courts - New Chief Judge for Indiana Court of Appeals | Main | Law - Supreme Court rules Crawford v. Washington is not retroactive »

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 8 today (and 30 NFP)

For publication opinions today (8):

Larry Keesling, et al. v. T.E.K. Partners, LLC - "Thomas McMullen, and M.G. Financial Services of Indiana, Inc. (“M.G. Financial”). The Keeslings and Heritage Land present two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether they are liable to T.E.K., the assignee of the original note, for sums advanced under a 2002 installment promissory note (the “second note”) executed without their knowledge or consent. We hold that the second note was a material alteration of the original obligation such that the Keeslings and Heritage Land, as accommodation parties, are both discharged from further personal liability on the original note and are not liable for the additional sums advanced under the second note, which they did not sign. We reverse and remand with instructions."

Eric D. Smith v. Indiana Department of Corrections and Westville Control Unit - "Eric D. Smith, pro se, an inmate currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility, appeals the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction, challenging that ruling as the sole issue on appeal. We affirm."

Denison Parking, Inc. v. Barbara L. and Jack Davis - Highlighted in this ILB entry.

In the Matter of the Commitment of A.W.D. - a 2-1 opinion. Majority: "In light of this evidence, we conclude the court’s decision to renew A.W.D.’s commitment was supported by the evidence, either because A.W.D. was dangerous to others or gravely disabled. Accordingly, we affirm." Dissent: "In this proceeding, the trial court conducted the entire direct examination and the entire cross examination. I cannot agree with my colleagues that the trial court was merely attempting to 'promote clarity' through these examinations. Rather, the trial court assumed the role of A.W.D.’s adversary by eliciting the evidence against A.W.D. A civil commitment constitutes a significant deprivation of personal liberty. Therefore, I believe that our courts must afford persons subject to confinement the benefits and protections of due process through truly adversarial proceedings."

Lyndale R. Ivy v. State of Indiana - "Lyndale R. Ivy, pro se, appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He asserts the court should have set aside his plea agreement because the State violated it when it did not dismiss the charges that remained after his sentencing. The State did fail, for over twenty years, to dismiss four requests for the death penalty and four other counts, as required by the plea agreement. However, this does not entitle Ivy to have his plea agreement set aside. Therefore, we affirm."

State of Indiana v. Melissa Rucker - "[D]ue to Sergeant Ewing’s failure to file the affidavit and warrant before conducting the search, 'the warrant was not supported by ‘oath or affirmation,’ as required by the constitutional provision against unreasonable search and seizure, and was illegal.' Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in granting Rucker’s Motion to Suppress."

Matthew Widduck v. State of Indiana - "Matthew Widduck (“Widduck”) was convicted of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in Marion Superior Court. He appeals, raising the following restated issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence resulting from the search of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. Concluding that the evidence was properly admitted, we affirm."

Aaron D. McDonald v. State of Indiana - "Aaron D. McDonald (“McDonald”) appeals the sentence he received following his guilty plea to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, a Class A felony, and criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon, a Class B felony. McDonald raises three issues, which we restate as: (I.) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the manner in which it considered and applied aggravators and mitigators during sentencing. (II.) Whether McDonald’s sentence is appropriate based on the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. (III.) Whether the trial judge committed fundamental error when he did not recuse at sentencing because he knew two of the State’s witnesses on a professional basis. We affirm."

NFP civil opinions today (13):

John M. Carnes v. Estate of Lawrence M. Carnes (NFP)

West American Ins. Co. v. Brenda Cates, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Bernard Cates, Jr. and Dylan Cates (NFP)

Ann T. Ward v. Anthony Ward (NFP)

AHEPA 100 Apartments, Inc. v. Joseph Schubert (NFP)

Robert A. Harper v. Lisa J. Harper (NFP)

South Central Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., d/b/a Center for Behavioral Health v. D.W., b/n/f Janice D. Wheeler (NFP)

Qudsia Davis v. New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, et al. (NFP)

Jonathan Stowe v. Danuel & Rhonda Kennett (NFP)

Karen S. Black v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Micropulse, Inc. (NFP)

Benjamin Dossey v. Heather Dossey (NFP)

Karen Paskell v. Michael Paskell (NFP)

Barrington A. Smith v. Lisa M. Smith (NFP)