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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT