ILNews

Opinions April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randall Woodruff, trustee, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on behalf of Legacy Healthcare Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning
29A02-1002-PL-220
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the Family and Social Services Administration on New Horizon Development Center’s $4 million quantum meruit claim. Once a provider with a long-term care facility has been voluntarily or involuntarily terminated, FSSA, as the state Medicaid agency, has the primary responsibility for relocating the Medicaid patients and for ensuring their safe and orderly transfer from the old facility. FSSA is also responsible for the care and services provided to these patients during the transfer process and the costs it incurred in operating the receivership. Directs that summary judgment be entered in favor of New Horizon.

Sheila Rudolph, et al. v. Roberta L. Ross, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1007-PL-754
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment for the Law Group of Ross and Brunner, and attorneys Roberta Ross and Darrolyn Ross in Rudolph and others suit alleging the attorneys improperly retained more than their share as compensation for legal services.

Jesse B. Scarsbrook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-1109
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

James A. Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1005-CR-297
Criminal. Reverses calculation of credit for the time Watson served prior to the revocation of his probation and remands with instructions.

Think Tank Software Dev., et al. v. Chester, Inc., et al. (NFP)
64A03-1003-PL-172
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment on the basis that the covenant not to compete was overbroad, on the propriety of the confidentiality clause, and on the tortious interference with a contract issue. Affirms summary judgment on the other remaining issues. Remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court had granted four transfers and denied 33 for the week ending April 8.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT