ILNews

Opinions Aug. 27, 2014

August 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, Deceased
49S05-1404-CC-209
Civil collection. Affirms award of $50,440 in attorney fees to the estate from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The fee cap provision in the Medical Malpractice Act does not directly apply to the fund to limit its liability. The fund may be required to pay more than 15 percent in attorney fees.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kenneth Owen Scrogham v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
13-3601
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses denial of application for disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The administrative law judge’s methodology was flawed in several respects. Three logical errors – overstating the significance of Scrogham’s daily activities, overreliance on his rehabilitative efforts as proof of his fitness for full-time work, and misinterpreting the significance of his extensive treatment – had a material effect on the ALJ’s credibility and residual functional capacity assessments.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-869
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms Lee’s conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. Declines Lee’s request to follow the reasoning of the Young panel. Holds that he did not preserve this issue for appellate review and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it entered judgment against Lee for attempted aggravated battery as an inherently lesser included offense to the state’s charge of murder.

Thomas Walter Gorski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A04-1404-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury and attempted dealing in a narcotic drug as a Class B felony.

Cohen & Malad, LLP v. John P. Daly, Jr., Golitko & Daly, P.C. and Golitko Legal Group, P.C. (NFP)
29A02-1308-PL-741
Civil plenary. Affirms that Cohen & Malad is not due quantum meruit compensation from John Daly and Golitko & Daly after Daly took 24 cases with him when he left Cohen & Malad and joined Golitko & Daly.

Jaro Mayda II v. Melinda D. Barnette (NFP)
34A05-1403-CC-101
Civil collection. Affirms order granting Barnette’s motion to dismiss Mayda’s complaint against her alleging fraud, defamation and failure to repay a loan purportedly established by oral agreement.

Latoya C. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-867
Criminal. Grants rehearing, but declines to reverse conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery.

Layne L. Dellamuth and Anita M. Dellamuth v. Ken's Carpets Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Carpets Unlimited (NFP)
74A01-1404-CC-165
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Carpets Unlimited on its complaint against the Dellamuths for failure to pay a balance owed on an account.

Evanston Insurance Company and Markel Corporation v. Samantha Meeks Family Practice, Inc., Samantha Meeks, and George Edwin Grant, et al. (NFP)
33A01-1401-PL-32
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands with instructions to deny the summary judgment motion of Meeks and her practice and grant the summary judgment motion of Evanston Insurance and Markel Corp. over whether a policy was in effect when Meeks made her claim.  

Frank Blythe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1061
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies dealing in a narcotic drug and dealing in a controlled substance.


 

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