John G. Baker

Aaron Renzy Gordy was charged with four counts of battery after battering his girlfriend and causing serious injuries, including fractures. Following a bench trial, the court found him guilty on all counts but entered a judgment of conviction and sentence only on the Level 3 felony aggravated battery, merging the remaining counts without separate judgments. Gordy appealed, arguing that the trial court’s use of merger rather than vacatur violated double jeopardy protections. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that double jeopardy is implicated only by multiple judgments of conviction for the same offense, not by multiple findings of guilt followed by a single judgment and sentence. The court noted that the trial court had explicitly limited the judgment of conviction to one count and that the sentencing order satisfied statutory requirements for a judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case T.P. v. B.P. was an appeal from the Indiana trial court in a matter docketed under a juvenile paternity designation. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in a per curiam-style disposition, affirmed the lower court's ruling in part and reversed it in part. Judges Baker, Kirsch, and Brown participated, with the decision issued on July 17, 2012; the excerpt provides no further details on the underlying facts, claims, or legal analysis supporting the partial affirmance and reversal.

family law

In Winslow v. Fifer, divorced parents Julie Winslow and Larry Fifer disputed Winslow's failure to reimburse Fifer for her court-ordered share of college expenses for their academically gifted daughters, J.F. (attending Indiana State University) and A.F. (attending Purdue University), after both received scholarships that minimized costs. Following a 2009 order requiring each parent to cover a portion of the remaining expenses—with Winslow responsible for 37.19%—and a later mediated agreement, Winslow ignored Fifer's repeated documented requests for $1,455.48 covering J.F.'s 2010-2011 year, citing lack of knowledge about living arrangements. Fifer then filed a contempt action seeking reimbursement, attorney fees, and an order for Winslow to pay the same percentage toward A.F.'s expenses. The trial court found Winslow in contempt, ordered her to pay the amount owed plus $750 in fees, and extended the obligation to A.F.; the appeals court affirmed, holding that Winslow had notice of the lawful order, offered no valid excuse for noncompliance, and that the fees were properly limited to the contempt proceeding.

family law

In Mies v. Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals, homeowners hired a contractor to repair their lake cottage foundation and rebuild an attached deck and stairs that violated a local 20-foot lakefront setback ordinance, but the contractor failed to obtain required permits and the project exceeded repair limits for nonconforming structures. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a post-construction variance for the stairs while conditioning approval on bringing the deck into compliance; the homeowners challenged the condition as unauthorized and argued the structures retained nonconforming status exempt from the ordinance. The court held that the BZA lacked statutory authority at the time to impose conditions on a development standards variance, rendering its entire decision a legal nullity that could not be severed, and that the new deck lost nonconforming status because the $8,950 replacement cost exceeded 50% of the original structure's value under the zoning ordinance. It therefore affirmed the trial court's reversal of the BZA decision and remand for a new hearing on the variance request.

propertyprocedure

In Dewitt v. Unsafe Building Department, City of Greendale, the appellant challenged a determination or order issued by the city's unsafe building department. The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the matter under case number 15A04-1110-MI-567 and issued a decision on July 3, 2012, affirming the lower court's ruling. Judge Baker authored the opinion, in which Judges Kirsch and Brown concurred. The provided excerpt contains no further factual background or legal analysis.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case Roell v. American Senior Communities, LLP was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a lower court ruling in a dispute involving the plaintiff and the defendant senior living facility operator. The court affirmed the trial court's decision in full. Judges Baker and Brown joined the majority opinion without reservation, while Judge Kirsch concurred only in part and dissented on other grounds.

healthcaretorts & liability

The case Woenkhaus v. Woenkhaus was a dissolution of marriage proceeding in Indiana. The Court of Appeals of Indiana reviewed a trial court judgment in the matter under case number 34A02-1111-DR-1041. In an unpublished memorandum decision issued on June 6, 2012, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case with instructions. The decision was authored by Judge Baker, with Judges Kirsch and Brown concurring. No further details on the underlying facts or legal analysis appear in the provided opinion excerpt.

family law

In Johnson v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal matter to the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 49A02-1108-CR-712. On June 6, 2012, the court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. Judge Baker authored the decision, with Judges Kirsch and Brown concurring; no further facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the excerpted text.

criminal law

The case Riggs v. Weinberger was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 45A03-1109-CT-394. In a May 31, 2012 unpublished memorandum decision, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Judge Baker authored the decision, in which Judges Darden and Bradford concurred. The provided excerpt contains no description of the underlying facts, claims, or legal analysis.

procedure

The case Schalk v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co., Inc. was a civil appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 53A05-1110-CC-535. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 30, 2012, affirming the trial court's ruling in full. Judge Baker authored the disposition, with Judges Kirsch and Brown concurring. The excerpt provides no underlying facts, claims, or legal analysis, consistent with the summary nature of a memorandum decision.

business & regulatory

In El-Adnani v. State, the appellant challenged a lower court ruling in a criminal matter (docketed as No. 02A03-1109-CR-463) before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 30, 2012, affirming the disposition below. Judge Baker authored the decision, with Judges Kirsch and Brown concurring; the excerpt contains no statement of facts, issues presented, or legal analysis.

criminal law

In this case, EON Properties, which owned commercial office space, sued Sisters of St. Francis Health Services (the Hospital) to enforce lease amendments under which the Hospital had reduced its rented space to allow EON to lease portions to new tenants, including Ameriquest. The key Third Amendment required the Hospital to pay Ameriquest’s rent for the final two years of its five-year lease if Ameriquest exercised an option to vacate after the first thirty-six months; Ameriquest did so, and EON sought to hold the Hospital liable for that amount plus related charges. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for EON on liability, holding that the plain language of the amendments allocated the risk of early termination to the Hospital for the last two years, but reversed on damages because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding credits for a security deposit, alleged overpayments, and an improper rent increase that EON had applied. The court remanded for further proceedings limited to determining the correct amount owed.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case Sheckles v. State was a criminal appeal from Clark County, Indiana, decided by the Court of Appeals of Indiana on May 29, 2012. In an unpublished memorandum decision, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Judge Baker authored the decision, with Judges Darden and Kirsch concurring. The provided excerpt contains no statement of facts, issues on appeal, or legal reasoning, only the bare disposition of affirmance.

criminal law

The case Justise v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 49A02-1105-CR-408. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 22, 2012, affirming the trial court's ruling in full. Judge Baker authored the decision, with Judges Kirsch and Brown concurring. No substantive facts, legal issues, or reasoning appear in the provided opinion excerpt.

criminal law

The case Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Indiana Drywall & Acoustics, Inc. involved an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a lower court decision in a dispute between an insurance company and a drywall contractor. On May 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision authored by Judge Baker, with Judges Darden and Bailey concurring. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling in part and reversed it in part. The provided excerpt contains no further information about the underlying facts, legal issues, or specific grounds for the partial affirmance and reversal.

business & regulatory

The case C.F. v. M.R. was an appeal from a domestic relations proceeding in Indiana, docketed under No. 30A01-1110-DR-467. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the trial court's ruling, with no further details or analysis provided in the disposition. Judges Baker, Kirsch, and Brown all concurred in the result.

family law

The case Hussey v. Toedebusch was a civil appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 89A01-1108-PL-345. In an unpublished memorandum decision issued on April 11, 2012, the court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The decision was authored by Judge Baker, with Judges Darden and Bailey concurring. No substantive facts, legal issues, or reasoning appear in the provided opinion excerpt.

procedure

In Fancil v. State, Douglas Fancil was convicted of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine after police searched his home, recovered materials and empty pseudoephedrine packets totaling about 15 grams, and obtained his recorded admission that he had been manufacturing meth. The State relied on a detective's testimony that 15 grams of pseudoephedrine "could" yield five or more grams of meth to meet the three-gram threshold for the Class A felony. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that this evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fancil actually manufactured three or more grams, following its earlier decision in Halferty v. State that similar "could" testimony on conversion ratios does not establish the required quantity. The court therefore reversed the Class A conviction, affirmed the underlying dealing conviction on other grounds, and remanded for entry of a Class B felony conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gagan v. Yast, former DirectBuy owners and officers sued their longtime attorney, C. Joseph Yast, for defamation after he told his adult son (owner of a related company, ThinkTank) and sent letters explaining his withdrawal from representing ThinkTank due to a conflict of interest arising from the 2007 sale of DirectBuy. The plaintiffs had taken a $75 million dividend, including $17 million in member merchandise deposits, which Yast and other officers viewed as inconsistent with company principles and potentially unauthorized under the merger agreement with Trivest. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Yast, holding that his statements were protected by qualified privilege. The court reasoned that Yast acted within the scope of that privilege to fulfill ethical disclosure duties under Rule 1.7 and to address shared concerns among company officers, with no evidence of ill will, actual malice, lack of good-faith belief in the statements' truth, or resulting reputational harm to the plaintiffs.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

After a windstorm damaged his roof, homeowner James McCulloch hired contractor Steinrock Roofing to perform repairs under a contract funded largely by insurance proceeds. When McCulloch withheld final payment due to leaks, loose tiles, improper mortar work, and other defects, Steinrock sued for the balance and filed a mechanic’s lien; McCulloch counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligent workmanship. Following a bench trial with expert testimony confirming widespread installation failures, the trial court found Steinrock had materially breached the contract, awarded McCulloch damages measured by the cost of necessary repairs (less amounts already paid), and rejected Steinrock’s defamation claim and other arguments. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly excluded certain insurance-related evidence, that Steinrock had waived any claim to limit damages under the Home Improvement Warranties statute by failing to raise it at trial, and that the awarded repair costs were consistent with the statute even if it applied. The court concluded the judgment rested on sufficient evidence of deficient performance and contained no reversible error.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability