ILNews

Opinions Oct. 23, 2012

October 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
11-2464
Civil. Reverses in part and affirms in part, affirming the district court injunction against I.C. 5-22-17-5.5(b) that bars state or federal funding for “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” The circuit court held that Medicaid grants individual rights under federal civil rights protections, but reversed the district court with regard to federal block grant funds, holding that no such actionable protection exists.

Indiana Supreme Court
National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS, Inc., NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
49S02-1203-CT-137
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Ernst & Young, holding that collateral estoppel precludes the plaintiffs’ deception claim because the veracity of the defendant’s documents at issue had been decided during arbitration proceedings.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC
49A05-1109-PL-486
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of DMY and denial of summary judgment in favor of State Auto, holding that language in insurance policies regarding pollutants was ambiguous. The court also remanded to the trial court to review settlement agreements between Indiana Farmers and DMY and to consider valid contribution of credit issues.

David Mathews v. State of Indiana
01A02-1203-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Mathews adjudication as a habitual offender. The court held that the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant Mathews’ request for a mistrial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
69A01-1203-CR-110
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions sentence for child molestation. The court found the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant did not warrant the 60-year aggregate term of imprisonment assessed by the trial court. Instead, it reversed and remanded with instructions to revise the sentencing order to run the two 30-year sentences concurrently for an aggregate 30-year term of imprisonment. Judge Crone dissented, arguing for a partially consecutive sentence.

David A. Young v. Gladys C. Young (NFP)
34A04-1204-DR-222
Divorce. Reverses and remands a dissolution of marriage order with instructions to equally divide the marital estate not subject to a prenuptial agreement and reverses the order awarding incapacity maintenance with instructions to determine whether wife has ability to support herself absent an award.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline Tuesday.









 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT