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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT