ILNews

Opinions Nov. 9, 2012

November 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc., and Leerae Riggs v. The Estate of Hazel D. Wadsack, deceased, by Ronald J. Wadsack as Personal Rep., and Ronald J. Wadsack, individually
88A01-1204-CT-144
Civil tort. Reverses trial court denial of plaintiff’s request for dismissal, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case. The estate of an injured worker’s mother sued the worker’s compensation insurer, claiming that the mother died as a result of emotional distress over the insurer’s handling of her son’s claim. The appeals court held that the Wadsacks had not exhausted appeals through the Worker’s Compensation Board, which the court determined had proper jurisdiction because the Wadsacks’ claim was derivative of their son’s claims for benefits.

Kelly Millard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class D felony.
 
Travis Reagle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1206-CR-332
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that the sentences for Class A felony rape and Class B felony burglary be served consecutively.

In Re the Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.T.: S.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1205-JT-228
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s decision to terminate mother’s parental rights to infant son, D.T.  

Timothy Allison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-277
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following the revocation of probation. Holds that Allison should have raised his argument that his initial sentence was illegal on direct appeal or in a petition for post-conviction relief.  

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of I.C., J.C, and P.C.: E.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1204-JT-273
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights over his three minor children.  


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT