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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT