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. 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