ILNews

Opinions Nov. 1, 2012

November 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Stephen W. Robertson, Indiana Comm. of Insurance, as Admin. of Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund and The Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. B.O., A Minor, Lisa A. Ort and Kevin C. Ort
49S04-1111-CT-671
Civil tort. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to B.O. and his parents because Indiana Code 34-18-15-3(5) precludes the Patient Compensation Fund from disputing the existence or cause of B.O.’s claimed injury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Leslie Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, Veolia Water North America Operating Service, LLC, and The City of Indianapolis, Dept. of Waterworks
49A02-1112-CC-1097
Civil collection. Affirms trial court dismissal of Bridges’ class action filed after her water was turned off for nonpayment, finding Bridges failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available at the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission. She had to seek those remedies before seeking judicial relief. Concludes that I.C. 8-1-2-68 through -70 grant the IURC exclusive jurisdiction over Bridges’ claim regardless of whether it is treated as a challenge to and request for reimbursement of the reconnect fee or as a challenge to the allegedly improper act of terminating her residential water service in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the tariff.

Joshua Shipley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A05-1204-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement with a deadly weapon.

Jeffrey S. Heironimus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1204-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence of witness identifications made after a warrantless entry into an accomplice’s residence.

Angela R. Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A04-1201-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanors possession of paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement.

Brian S. Fleming v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1202-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Stephen L. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony corrupt business influence.

Bryan Jann v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and C&B Custom Modular, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1185
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by review board that Jann, by failing to appear, had presented no evidence to support claim for unemployment benefits.

Darrius Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1202-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Kenneth Hawkins v. Debra Hawkins (NFP)
49A02-1203-DR-206
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of assets and declines to award Debra Hawkins attorney fees.

David J. Bogolia and Nikki Schafer v. John Danielson, M.D. (NFP)
64A04-1201-CC-42
Civil collection. Affirms denial of Bogolia’s and Schafer’s motion for partial summary judgment and their motion to strike Dr. Danielson’s response to that motion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT