ILNews

Opinions Nov. 13, 2012

November 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
D.C. v. J.A.C.
32S04-1206-DR-349
Domestic relation/modification of custody. Reverses Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a trial court modification of a custody order in favor of a child’s father. In a case involving a mother who was moving out of state, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply a highly deferential standard of review to the trial court’s determination of a custody modification based on testimony regarding the best interests of the child.

John Haegert v. University of Evansville
82S01-1204-PL-235
Civil Plenary. Affirms trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the university after Haegert filed a complaint alleging defamation, tortuous breach of his employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the university failed to meet its burden of proof.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, both Class B felonies, and escape, a Class C felony. Concludes the detective’s opinion was properly admitted as that of a skilled witness, the evidence was sufficient to support Perry’s convictions and the state’s closing argument did not create a fundamental error.

Robin R. Gordon v. Benny B. Gordon (NFP)
92A05-1205-DR-279
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order that mother and father share joint legal custody of minor child.

Joseph Ridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-CR-1168
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. The COA found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either denying Ridge’s request to hire an expert or in allowing Dr. Scott Kriger to hear the testimony of Hamilton County Sheriff’s Deputy Kent Mustain. The COA further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Kriger’s expert testimony that Ridge was intoxicated on K2 at the time of the traffic stop.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT