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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT