« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit Tinder opinion involving attorney sanctions, out of Wisconsin | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Feature on Bloomington's African-American heritage »

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion today (and 7 NFP memorandum decisions)

For publication opinions today (3):

In In re the Paternity of Snyder, M.S. v. D.A., an 8-page opinion, Judge May concludes:

There is no evidence in the record suggesting how M.A.’s physical health or emotional development would be impaired by telling M.A. that Father is her biological father. See Ind. Code § 31-14-14-1(a); Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (statute requires specific finding of physical endangerment or emotional impairment prior to imposing restriction). As such a finding is required by statute, the trial court erred when it denied Father’s request to tell M.A. he is her father, and we accordingly reverse that portion of the trial court’s decision.
In Walnut Creek Nursey, Inc., d/b/a Alsip Home & Nursey v. Barbara Banske, a 15-page opinion, Sr. Judge Sharpnack writes:
Walnut Creek Nursery, Inc., d/b/a Alsip Home & Nursery (“Alsip”), appeals from a jury’s verdict in favor of Barbara Banske, in a negligence action brought by Banske. Alsip contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing a naprapath, who was licensed as such in Illinois, to testify about her treatment of Banske in Illinois. Alsip claims that the testimony should have been excluded and that a new trial should be held during which that testimony is not admitted. Concluding that no error is preserved for our review, we affirm. * * *

Grice testified that naprapathy is “soft tissue manipulation, connective tissue
manipulation” with the goal of “assist[ing] the body in healing itself.” Naprapathy involves application of pressure to points on a person’s body that “releases the contracture or tightness of the soft tissue to facilitate opening up the circulation.” * * *

Because Indiana does not license naprapaths, and Grice was licensed to practice
and treated Banske in Illinois, we turn to Illinois law to help understand the
matter. * * *

Applying the rationale used in Kyowski (Ill. App. Ct. 1979), to the facts of this case, we conclude that Grice’s testimony about her treatment of Banske’s injuries was sufficiently connected to Banske’s slip and fall. Grice had treated Banske before and after her slip and fall and testified about the difference in Banske’s health from the stand point of a naprapath. The trial court did not err as a matter of law by admitting Grice’s testimony. The evidence was relevant and helpful to the jury.

We save the resolution of the limitations on the testimony of a naprapath for
another day.

In Natasha R. Hill v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
Following a bench trial, Natasha Hill was convicted of two counts of theft and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2526.83. Hill appeals, raising two issues for our review: (1) whether her dual theft convictions, which were based upon acts committed minutes apart and in the same department store, are contrary to law; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Hill to pay restitution. Concluding Hill’s dual convictions violate Indiana’s single larceny rule and that the trial court’s restitution order was an abuse of discretion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NFP civil decisions today (0):

NFP criminal decisions today (7):

Malcom Cobb, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Eddie Long v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Forrest Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Gregory Schweisthal v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Alandus D. James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Herbert Sheese v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Larry Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 19, 2015 10:45 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions