ILNews

Opinions June 11, 2014

June 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange
49S02-1311-PL-733
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Erie Insurance on the issue of whether its automobile policy provided uninsured motorists coverage for automobile property damaged caused by a hit-and-run driver where no personal injury resulted. Because personal injury did not result in the accident, the Erie policy does not provide uninsured motorist coverage with respect to the property damage sustained by the Robinsons’ vehicle.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
49A04-1212-PO-649
Protective order. On rehearing, reverses 28-year extension of protective order because it is unreasonable. Because A.N. agreed to an extension, remands for the trial court to determine a reasonable extension of K.G.’s protective order in accordance with the instructions in this opinion.

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne
49A04-1309-PL-451
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc. and Brian Payne on the Millers’ lawsuit alleging, among other things, defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. Summary judgment was proper on the tort claims, civil conspiracy claim and loss of consortium claim.

State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk
79A04-1308-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms grant of Vanderkolk’s suppression motion. Caselaw supports the conclusion that Vanderkolk’s roommate did not completely waive his Fourth Amendment rights before beginning home detention. A search of their home led to contraband in Vanderkolk’s room. Judge Bailey concurs in result. Judge Kirsch dissents without opinion.

Ajayi Folajuwoni v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor voyeurism, Class B misdemeanor battery and Class B felony attempted deviate conduct.

In Re the Paternity of C.B.: F.M. v. N.B. (NFP)
71A04-1309-JP-492
Juvenile. Affirms grant of father’s petition to award him primary custody of child and the order mother pay $5,000 of father’s attorney fees.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.R. and K.R., Minor Children, and B.W., Mother, B.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al (NFP)
45A05-1307-JT-335
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT