ILNews

Opinions April 24, 2012

April 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

George Clements v. Kimberly Hall and Stanley Harmon
06A04-1106-MI-282
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s award of summary judgment for Kimberly Hall and Stanley Harmon, holding their attorney failed to notify George Clements and his attorney that a motion had been filed. Remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Shawn A. Keckler, Kari Felda, Special Admin. to the Estate of Ryan S. Holloway, Janice Norman, Dewayne Scott, Timothy J. Boganwright, et al. v. Meridian Security Insurance Company

43A03-1112-PL-551
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Meridian Security Insurance Company, holding the company failed to prove that a driver who caused a fatal crash had violated an exclusionary clause in the policy. Holds that failing to pay for claims arising from the crash would have drastic consequences for those injured and killed in the crash, and remands for further proceedings.

Delbert Conklin v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Carter Express, Inc.
93A02-1109-EX-864
Civil. Reverses finding that Delbert Conklin was not entitled to unemployment benefits because of his momentary loss of consciousness that caused him to veer off the road and damage the truck he was driving for Carter Express, and its contents. Holds that no evidence suggests Conklin is to blame for that incident and he therefore did not breach a duty to Carter and should receive unemployment benefits.

Michael L. Crowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1108-CR-420
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony forgery, one count of Class D felony receiving stolen property and Class D felony theft.

Harold W. Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1109-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Harold Reynolds serve the remaining 12 months of his previously suspended sentence for violation of his work release requirements.

Releford Green, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1107-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery; reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery on double jeopardy grounds and remands with instruction that the trial court vacate the conviction and sentence on that count.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., D.B., and D.S.; M.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
30A04-1110-JT-554
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

In Re The Marriage of: Leanne Kathleen Johnson v. Florenzo Johnson (NFP)
49A02-1109-DR-852
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s grant of father’s petition to modify joint legal custody, awarding full custody of two children to father.

Indiana Supreme Court accepted no cases on transfer for the week ending April 20.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT