ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2012

August 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

CSL Community Association, Inc. v. Clarence Ray Meador
40A01-1112-MI-579
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s grant of Meador’s motion for declaratory judgment that abrogated his obligation to pay homeowner’s association dues, finding that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the changes in the community were so radical that the original purpose of the community and the deed restrictions were destroyed, and that the trial court erred in abrogating Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments.

Michael Thalheimer v. Ramon and Stacey Halum
49A02-1203-PL-167
Civil plenary. Affirms bench trial findings and judgment in favor of Halum, concluding that Thalheimer waived his claim that Halum spoilated evidence; that the economic loss doctrine did not preclude a negligence claim; and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Thalheimer’s work was poor quality. The court denied Halum’s claim for appellate attorney fees, holding that an award on the argument that the appeal was frivolous and in bad faith was not warranted.

E.J., a minor by his mother and father Victor and Lynell Jeffrey v. Paul Okolocha, M.D., Okolocha Medical Corp., and Okolocha Medical, Pain and Weight
45A03-1201-CT-15
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Okolocha, holding that the doctor owed no duty to adoptive parents to provide prenatal medical records because authorization to release the records did not satisfy elements of HIPPA or Indiana Code 16-39-1-4(1).

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ma.J. and My.J.; and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
27A02-1112-JT-1193
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Reverses termination of mother’s parental rights, concluding that the Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the conditions resulting in children’s removal would not be remedied due to the mother’s progress over eight months in meeting areas of concern.

Dennis Feyka v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class A felony child molesting, holding that a prosecutor’s references to Feyka’s failure to testify were not fundamental error and that there was sufficient evidence to support Feyka’s conviction.

Anastazia Schmid v. State of Indiana
79A04-1110-PC-618
Post conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief, finding the appellant-defendant did not demonstrate counsels’ alleged errors were prejudicial.

Kendrice Dorsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1109-PC-563
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Appeals trial court denial of post-conviction relief for Class A felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

Elsa M. McLaughlin v. John C. Clark and Zore's, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1109-CT-862
Civil tort. Affirms trial court ruling in favor of Clark.

Gene Hildebrandt v. Pepsi America a/k/a Globe Transport (NFP)
93A02-1111-EX-1033
Executive administrative/workers’ compensation. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Warren Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1201-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms trial court order of contempt of court.

Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1204-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Marshall Jackson v. Beckie Bennett (NFP)
49A02-1112-MI-1199
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial for petition of writ of habeus corpus.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.Y.; M.Y. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1121
Juvenile/termination. Affirms trial court termination of parental rights.

Rachel Ann Ruch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1202-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment for restitution from a conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., Minor Child; A.Y., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1112-JT-702
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jeffrey M. Steffen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A04-1110-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four Class D felony counts of intimidation and theft.

Sherri Hillenburg and Dennis Hillenburg v. Paul D. Reeves and Norma J. Reeves Revocable Trust; Paul Reeves, Norma J. Reeves and John Reeves (NFP)
53A04-1111-PL-615
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.


 

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