ILNews

Opinions March 24, 2014

March 24, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued Friday after IL deadline.

State of Indiana v. I.T.
20S03-1309-JV-583
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s dismissal of a delinquency petition against I.T. that had been filed on the sole basis of a polygraph examination taken while he was receiving treatment as a condition of probation for a delinquency adjudication for what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. Finds that the limited immunity in the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, I.C. § 31-32-2-2.5, provides a safe harbor that prevents the state from using statements during court-ordered therapy as the sole basis for juvenile delinquency petitions.  Concludes the state may appeal a juvenile court order that suppresses evidence, if doing so terminates the proceeding.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Purdue University v. Michael A. Wartell
79A02-1304-PL-342
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order ruling that Purdue University should be equitably estopped from invoking attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine to prevent a chancellor from obtaining a copy of a report by an independent investigator looking into his claims of harassment and discrimination against former university president France Cordova. Concludes that the attorney hired to investigate the allegations was not Purdue’s legal counsel but rather an independent investigator; therefore the trial court rulings were not an abuse of discretion.

David Sesay v. State of Indiana
49A02-1305-CR-434
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, holding that the state failed to prove Sesay engaged in any conduct beyond intoxication that endangered his life.

Albert J. Purcell v. Theresa M. Purcell (NFP)
10A01-1309-DR-390
Domestic. Affirms trial court issuance of a qualified domestic relations order distributing funds from a profit-sharing account owned by the parties before a divorce.

Beatriz Morales v. Housing Authority of South Bend and Attorney General of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1308-SC-311
Small claims. Affirms trial court order of eviction in favor of the Housing Authority of South Bend.

Becky O'Neal v. Donald O'Neal (NFP)
55A04-1310-DR-484
Domestic. Affirms trial court’s denial of petition to modify parenting time.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions Monday before IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions before IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  2. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  3. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  4. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  5. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

ADVERTISEMENT