« Courts - "A former bank robber, Shon R. Hopwood emerged from more than a decade in federal prison as a skilled Supreme Court practitioner" | Main | Environment - "State lawmakers laying plans for coal-gas pipeline" »

Monday, February 08, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (4):

In Gatlin Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Estate of Robert Yeager , a 16-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Darden writes:

Gatlin Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (“Gatlin”) appeals the denial of its objection to the trial court's order in the Matter of the Estate of Robert H. Yeager (“the Estate”) that directed the transfer of 63 shares of Gatlin capital stock held by the late Robert H. Yeager (“Robert”). We affirm. * * *

KIRSCH, J., concurs.
MAY, J., dissents with separate opinion. [that begins, at p. 13] The decision by Yeager's heirs not to open an estate, even though the decedent's assets exceeded the $50,000 limit, should not permit them to circumvent the shareholder's agreement to which Yeager was a party. I must therefore respectfully dissent.

Lei Shi v. Cecilia Yi, et al. "Lei Shi appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment filed by Your Title Company, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Title (“Enterprise”). Shi raises three issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred in granting Enterprise’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as the cause of action relates to Enterprise. We affirm."

In A.S. v. T.H. , a 9-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:

A.S. appeals the trial court's order of protection against her pursuant to a petition filed by T. H. We affirm. * * *

We return to the legislature's stated purpose that the Act provide a mechanism for a protective order that promotes the protection and safety of all victims of domestic violence and prevents future domestic violence. See I.C. § 34-26-5-1. The Act authorizes an order of protection that would prohibit the respondent “from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting,” or communicating with the petitioner, I.C. § 34-26-5-9(b)(2); to order the “relief necessary to provide for the safety and welfare of a petitioner and each designated family or household member,” and “necessary to bring about a cessation of the violence or the threat of violence,” as well as I.C. § 34-36-5-9(b)(2), (b)(6), and (f). Here, the trial court was presented with facts indicating physical violence by A.S. and a pattern of acts directed at harassing T. H.'s household. The trial court took action as authorized by statute in order to maintain the peace and to prevent the occurrence of any future domestic violence. We find sufficient evidence of probative value and reasonable inferences supports its issuance of the protective order. Tons, 815 N.E.2d at 511.

In Samuel Hampton v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Samuel Hampton appeals his conviction for child molesting as a class A felony.1 Hampton raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Hampton's conviction. On cross appeal, the State raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is illegal. We affirm.
NFP civil opinions today (2):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.W.; E.W. & M.W. v. IDCS (NFP) - "Mother next argues that the termination of her parental rights violates the Indiana Constitution’s Article 1 Section 30 prohibition on corruption of blood. Mother’s argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of parental rights termination. The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent (and certainly not the child) for the parent’s status, poor choices, or crimes. Rather, its primary, well-established purpose is to protect the child and ensure that the child’s best interests are served. The Article 1 Section 30 prohibition on corruption of blood bears no relation to and does not affect the process of termination of parental rights."

Matter of the Unsupervised Estate of Darwin Schultz; Daryl Schultz v. Judge Robert Hall, et al. (NFP) - "Daryl Schultz (“Schultz”), an heir of the Estate of Darwin Schultz (“the Estate”), filed pro se in Jackson Superior Court a “Verified Petition for Relief from Frauds, Illegalities and Wrongfully Intending Perpetrated In Connection with the Estate of Darwin L. Schultz” against Judge Robert Hall, Ned Tonner, Donald Shelmon, Robert Gabrielse, and Thomas Fritts (collectively “the Respondents”). After concluding that Shultz lacked standing to assert the claims raised in his petition, the court dismissed all claims pending against the Respondents. Schultz pro se appeals the trial court's finding that he lacked standing to raise the claims set forth in his petition. We affirm."

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Keith McCoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kevin L. Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert M. Foy, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 8, 2010 01:19 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions