ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2010

August 13, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Barbara J. Castile v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
09-3917
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David Hamilton.
Civil. Affirms denial of Castile’s numerous claims for obtaining disability insurance and disability widow’s benefits. There was substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Castile’s chronic fatigue syndrome didn’t render her disabled. The ALJ thoroughly examined the evidence and articulated his findings and the District Court didn’t err in upholding the ALJ’s credibility determinations.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bonnie Taggart Paloutzian, et al. v. Belle Delint-Eaglesfield and Gregory Taggart
49A02-0908-CV-817
Civil. Affirms order that Gregory Taggart and Belle Delint-Eaglesfield, adopted children of Henry G. Taggart, are beneficiaries under their grandfather Alex Taggart Jr.’s 1953 trust. Holds that a 2003 amendment to the Trust Code I.C. Section 30-4-2.1-2, which abrogated the stranger to the adoption rule and placed adopted children on equal footing with natural children, applies retroactively to the trust in this case pursuant to I.C. Section 30-4-1-4. Judge Crone dissents.

Henry C. Bennett, et al. v. John E. Richmond, et al.
20A03-0906-CV-285
Civil. Reverses denial of Bennett and Schupan & Son’s motion to correct error following a jury trial verdict in favor of John and Jennifer Richmond on their complaint alleging Bennett’s negligence and damages. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. McCabe to testify that John Richmond sustained a brain injury as a result of the car accident with Bennett. Remands for a new trial.

Bruce Swift, Jr. v. Robert J. Jeka and Alexandra Jeka (NFP)
64A03-1002-PL-52
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment in favor of the Jekas that Swift committed fraud and constructive fraud.

Dimensions, Inc., and DI Construction Services, Inc. v. The Odle, McGuire & Shook Corporation (NFP)
49A05-0909-CV-540
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for The Odle, McGuire & Shook Corp. on Dimensions, Inc. and DI Construction Services’ claims for breach of contract and negligence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT