ILNews

Opinions Aug. 31, 2012

August 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Seabrook, Dieckmann & Naville, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Monica Hilbert
93A02-1202-EX-100
Agency action. Reverses board’s conclusion that Hilbert’s employment was not terminated for just cause. Based on the evidence and testimony, Seabrook Dieckmann & Naville showed that Hilbert breached a duty in connection with work which was reasonably owed to her employer and her conduct was of such a nature that a reasonable employee would understand that the conduct was a violation of a duty owed to the funeral home. Remands for further proceedings.

Patricia J. Barrow and Charlie Hanka v. City of Jeffersonville, Jeffersonville Planning and Zoning Dept., Jeffersonville Board of Zoning Appeal, Jeffersonville Building Comm., et al.
10A05-1112-PL-647
Civil plenary. Affirms conclusion that Chester Hicks, city director of planning and zoning, and Russell Segraves, city building commissioner, were public officers and the statute of limitations in I.C. 34-11-2-6 was applicable to this case. Concludes that the director and building commissioner were public officers because both held positions for which duties are prescribed by law to serve a public purpose. Reverses summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiffs’ complaint was timely filed.

Wabash County Young Men's Christian Association, Inc. f/k/a Wabash Community Service v. Taylor M. Thompson, a minor, by next friends, Brian Thompson and Charlene Thompson
85A05-1203-CT-138
Civil tort. Reverses order denying the YMCA’s motion to dismiss a negligence complaint brought by a 17-year-old injured while playing softball from sliding into base. The release form signed by Taylor Thompson’s mother was valid, and the teen’s injury was derived from a risk inherent in the nature of playing softball.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.F. (Minor Child), and M.G. & S.F. (Father & Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
26A04-1202-JT-90
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. The trial court committed fundamental error in terminating the parents’ rights when the child was removed under a dispositional decree for less than six months.

Alice Lee v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1090
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attendance at an animal fighting contest as a Class A misdemeanor. Indiana Code 34-46-3-10 is not unconstitutionally vague.

Roderick Vandrell Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1201-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of felony murder.

Carroll S. Channell, Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Carroll S. Channell dated August 21, 2000, et al. v. Tim Moffatt and Bill Moffatt (NFP)
59A04-1112-PL-664
Civil plenary. Affirms pre-trial order resolving all pending motions in an action originally brought to quiet title to real estate located in Orange County. Remands for further proceedings.

Jeremy Lamar Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-79
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony burglary.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S., minor child, and D.S., mother, and W.S., father; D.S. and W.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A05-1112-JT-673
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

B.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1202-JV-68
Juvenile. Vacates order B.C. register as a sex offender as the order was premature and remands with instructions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT