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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT