ILNews

Opinions Dec. 23, 2013

December 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael W. Peters, M.D. and Deaconess Hospital, Inc. v. Cynthia S. Kendall and Michael J. Kendall
82A01-1302-PL-55
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the medical group’s motion for partial summary judgment in the medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the Kendalls. The proof of claim filed by the Kendalls in the liquidation proceedings of Dr. Peters’ insurer does not constitute a binding contract.

Duane Jadrich v. State of Indiana
32A04-1302-CR-67
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and paraphernalia possession. The sheriff’s deputy’s search of Jadrich’s home after trying to serve a protective order violated the Fourth Amendment.

Town of Newburgh v. Town of Chandler
87A01-1305-CT-203
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment for Chandler and reverses denial of summary judgment of Newburgh on the issue of whether Newburgh’s ordinance can prevent Chandler from providing new sewer services to customers within a specific area. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment for Newburgh. The statutes as they exist authorized Newburgh’s ordinance.

Djomon N. Tito v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-315
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of: J.S. (Minor Child), and K.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1305-JT-438
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: N.F. v. Wishard Health Services, Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1304-MH-306
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment.

Shamberley Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1305-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms decision to impose restitution but remands for recalculation of those damages.

Ethan Sizemore v State of Indiana (NFP)
39A05-1306-CR-271
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony burglary.

Stardust Development, LLC v. Randy Cassady (NFP)
53A01-1305-PL-210
Civil plenary. Reverses order that certain real estate jointly owned by Stardust Development and Cassady be sold at sheriff’s sale by public auction with no reserve.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT