Michael P. Barnes

This case, Allen v. State, was a criminal appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 49A02-1111-CR-1053. On July 12, 2012, the court issued a decision authored by Judge Barnes, with Judges Friedlander and May concurring, that affirmed the trial court’s ruling in part and remanded the case for further proceedings in part. The provided excerpt contains no information about the underlying facts, the issues presented on appeal, or the court’s legal reasoning.

criminal law

The case ALEA LONDON, LTD. v. NAGY was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a trial court decision involving the named parties. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Barnes wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judges Friedlander and May. No additional facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the excerpt provided.

procedure

In City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, the case arose after Rachael Buschman was rear-ended by a police officer and submitted a tort claim notice to the City stating only property damage to her vehicle ($960.99), with an explicit statement of "No injuries," along with supporting documents; two years later she filed a lawsuit alleging personal injuries including hip and back pain and herniated discs from the same accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to Buschman, finding her notice sufficient under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the notice did not substantially comply with the Act's requirements to describe the extent of the loss and amount of damages sought. The court reasoned that the notice's specific and definitive statements limiting the claim to property damage and denying any injuries failed to inform the City of any potential personal injury liability, so it did not afford the City a reasonable opportunity to investigate that aspect of the claim; any later-discovered injuries would have required a timely amendment to the original notice.

proceduretorts & liability

The case of Clements v. Albers reached the Indiana Court of Appeals as a civil matter (designated PL) involving an appeal from a lower court ruling. In a June 25, 2012, decision authored by Judge Barnes, the court affirmed the trial court's outcome and remanded the case for further proceedings, with Judges Baker and Brown concurring. The provided excerpt contains no facts, issues, arguments, or legal analysis explaining the dispute or the basis for the affirmance.

procedure

The provided excerpt from Auto Liquidation Center, Inc. v. Bates contains no facts about the underlying dispute between the parties, the claims raised, or the trial court's ruling. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a per curiam-style decision in which Judge Barnes, joined by Judges Friedlander and May, affirmed the judgment below and remanded the case for further proceedings. No substantive reasoning, legal analysis, or discussion of the issues appears in the excerpt.

procedure

This case, Nikolayev v. Nikolayev, was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a trial court decision in a domestic relations matter. In an unpublished memorandum decision issued on May 31, 2012, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Barnes authored the decision, with Judges Friedlander and May concurring. The provided excerpt contains no facts, issues, or legal reasoning from the underlying dispute or the court's analysis.

family law

This case was a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo Bank against Castalia Homes, LLC in Indiana trial court. The Indiana Court of Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum decision issued on May 31, 2012, reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Judges Barnes, Friedlander, and May participated, with Barnes writing and the others concurring. The excerpt provides no facts, issues presented, or legal analysis supporting the reversal.

property

In Re DK involved the Indiana Department of Child Services petitioning to terminate O.K.'s parental rights to her son D.K., who was removed from her care in 2009 after a substantiated neglect report and later adjudicated a child in need of services. The trial court granted the termination, finding that Mother had failed to complete required services such as parenting classes, obtain stable housing or employment despite moving at least eight times and holding only short-term jobs, and comply with counseling even after a second chance following the father's rights termination. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear evidence showed a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied, based on Mother's long-term pattern of instability rather than any last-minute efforts like securing a new apartment. The court noted that a parent's habitual conduct, not isolated recent changes, controls such determinations under Indiana law.

family law

The case Holland v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 53A01-1107-CR-333. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 25, 2012, that affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judge Barnes authored the decision, with Judges Baker and Brown concurring. No facts of the underlying case or legal reasoning appear in the provided excerpt of the memorandum decision.

criminal law

Lainhart v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 24A01-1105-CR-241. The appellant challenged a trial court ruling, but the three-judge panel issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 17, 2012, affirming the lower court's outcome. Judge Barnes wrote the decision, with Judges Vaidik and Mathias concurring. No further factual details or legal analysis appear in the provided excerpt.

criminal law

In Riley v. State, a criminal defendant appealed a trial court judgment in an Indiana case docketed as No. 65A01-1111-CR-552. On May 17, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. Judges Barnes, Friedlander, and May participated, with the latter two concurring in the result. No further facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the excerpted opinion.

criminal law

Latisha Lawson was convicted of murder and related neglect and battery charges after she suffocated her young son during a religious exorcism ritual in which she and another adult forced the child to ingest oil and vinegar to expel a supposed demon; she then concealed the body for over a year while telling others the child was living elsewhere. On appeal, she challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of her insanity defense. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, holding that the State presented probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Lawson was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the offenses. That evidence included her post-incident efforts to hide the death, her statements to others, and the inconclusive or non-dispositive nature of the expert testimony on her mental state, which did not compel a finding of legal insanity under Indiana law.

criminal lawreligious liberty

The case involved a dispute between Kroger and WC Associates (successor to the shopping center developer) over modifications Kroger made in 2009 to a shared pylon sign on the Westpoint Commons property in Indianapolis, which was governed by a 1993 Reciprocal Easement Agreement (as amended). Kroger had removed the top of the sign structure, altered its own panel to advertise fuel prices, and disconnected power to the remaining panels; WC sued for breach of contract, criminal conversion, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief, and sought sanctions and attorney fees. The trial court granted summary judgment to WC on all claims and awarded sanctions, but the Court of Appeals affirmed only the breach-of-contract ruling and the sanctions, reversed the criminal claims, and remanded for calculation of appellate attorney fees. The court held that Kroger violated its maintenance and signage obligations under Sections 9.2 and 9.5 of the Agreement by failing to keep the entire pylon in good repair and operating condition, but the record did not establish the criminal intent or other elements required for the tort claims as a matter of law. Attorney fees were available to the prevailing party under the Agreement’s fee-shifting clause only for the contract claim.

propertycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Patterson v. State, the appellant challenged a criminal conviction or ruling issued by an Indiana trial court. On April 25, 2012, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision in which Judge Barnes, joined by Judges Friedlander and May, affirmed the lower court's outcome. Because the decision is designated as a memorandum opinion, the excerpt provides no public details on the underlying facts, legal issues, or specific reasoning applied by the panel.

criminal law

In Keckler v. Meridian Security Insurance Co., the case involved a declaratory judgment action by Meridian Security Insurance Company seeking to deny coverage under an umbrella policy for claims arising from a 2008 car accident caused by its insured, Nathan Creighton. Creighton, who had marijuana metabolites in his system and later pled guilty to operating a vehicle with a controlled substance resulting in injury, crossed into oncoming traffic while passing another vehicle, killing two passengers and injuring others; the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury "arising out of" the use of controlled substances like marijuana, but not for legitimate prescription use. The trial court granted summary judgment to Meridian, finding the exclusion applied. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Meridian failed to show the injuries arose out of marijuana use, as toxicologist testimony established only the presence of non-psychoactive metabolites without proving impairment at the time of the crash. The court also rejected arguments to expand the exclusion on public policy grounds, emphasizing that it could not rewrite the policy's plain language.

torts & liability

This case, James v. State, was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 71A03-1110-CR-486. The appellant challenged a trial court ruling, and the three-judge panel issued an unpublished memorandum decision on April 20, 2012. Judge Barnes wrote the opinion affirming the lower court's disposition, with Judges Friedlander and May concurring. No further details about the underlying facts or legal issues appear in the provided excerpt.

criminal law

In Mays v. State, the appellant sought review of a criminal conviction or sentence before the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 49A02-1107-CR-669. On April 18, 2012, the court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the trial court's outcome. Judge Barnes authored the decision, with Judges Friedlander and May concurring; no further reasoning or facts appear in the published disposition.

criminal law

The case Mikel v. State was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a lower court decision in a dispute between an individual defendant and the State, docketed under case number 52A04-1111-SC-598. On April 18, 2012, the court issued an unpublished memorandum decision that affirmed certain aspects of the trial court's ruling, reversed others, and remanded the matter for additional proceedings. Judge Barnes authored the decision, with Judges Kirsch and Bradford concurring. No further details on the underlying facts or legal reasoning appear in the excerpt provided.

criminal lawprocedure

This case, Orme v. State (No. 73A01-1105-CR-233), was a criminal appeal decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals on April 18, 2012. The court, in an unpublished memorandum decision by Judge Barnes (with Judges Kirsch and Bradford concurring), reversed the lower court's ruling. The excerpt provides no further details on the underlying facts, charges, legal issues presented, or specific grounds for reversal.

criminal law

This case, Adams v. State, was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 33A04-1110-CR-562. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on April 12, 2012, affirming the trial court's ruling in full. Judge Barnes authored the decision, with Judges Kirsch and Bradford concurring, though the excerpt contains no description of the underlying facts, claims, or legal analysis supporting the affirmance.

criminal law