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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT