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. 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