ILNews

Opinions April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas M. Grimes v. Victoria Crockrom, et al.
45A03-1008-CT-491
Civil tort. Affirms order that Grimes, Crockrom’s former attorney, produce Crockrom’s medical records he obtained while he was representing her. The trial court erred when it did so without first providing for the security of the attorney fees owed. Grimes has a valid retaining lien over Crockrom’s medical records. Remands with instructions that the court determine how much in attorney fees Grimes is owed and then order Crockrom to provide security for the payment of those fees.

D.G. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1006-JV-416
Juvenile. Reverses true finding that D.G. committed what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The failure to assess victim A.S.’s competency before testifying was an error and requires reversing the true finding. There is sufficient evidence to permit another hearing on the allegations. Remands for further proceedings.

Brett Boston v. State of Indiana
32A01-1008-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of Boston’s motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in retroactively applying the 2010 amendments to I.C. Section 9-30-6-6 and reliance, thereon, in denying Boston’s motion to suppress. The amendments were remedial in nature, motivated by strong and compelling reasons aimed at public safety and welfare, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto criminal sanctions.

Michael J. Cable v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony intimidation and one count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

State of Indiana v. Mary McNeal (NFP)
84A05-1008-CR-485
Criminal. Affirms grant of McNeal’s motion to suppress.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.H.; R.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
79A02-1009-JT-1166
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lisa and Nicole Tanasijevic v. Alicia Bookwood (NFP)
45A03-1007-CT-364
Civil tort. Affirms verdict in favor of Bookwood on the Tanasijevics’ complaint following an auto accident.

Claudette Mee, et al. v. George Albers, M.D., et al. (NFP)
03A01-1007-CT-339
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Dr. Albers and Southern Indiana OB/GYN on the Mees’ complaint for damages arising from alleged medical malpractice.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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