ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2010

August 20, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Torrey Bauer, David Certo, and Indiana Right to Life, Inc. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al.
09-2963
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms District court’s ruling that the state’s judicial canons are constitutional regarding whether judges can make public statements regarding controversial issues. The opinion recognizes a split among Circuits throughout the country on the issue. Also finds that a portion of the challenge involving the pre-2009 conduct code is unripe, rather than moot as the District court had found.

Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Gary C. Wendt, et al.
09-2154
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. Finds the District Court did not commit a legal error, or abuse its discretion, in deciding that the fraud-on-the-market doctrine should not be conscripted to serve some other function in a lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiffs claim the defendants made false statements about Conseco, which in turn affected their perceived value of the shares.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jeff Sagarin and Shirley Jablonski v. City of Bloomington
53A01-0909-CV-454
Civil. Affirms trial court’s ruling in city’s favor regarding Sagarin’s inverse condemnation claim because he knew about the easement when he purchased the property. Reverses and remands for determination of attorney’s fees in regards to Jablonski. Affirms trial court’s determination regarding tolling of statute of limitations.

Canteen Service Company of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Transportation
82A04-0908-CV-466
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Transportation on Canteen’s claim for damages from an alleged inverse condemnation. Canteen raised two issues for review: whether Canteen’s previous sale of its property adjacent and contiguous to First Avenue extinguished its right of direct access to First Avenue; and whether INDOT’s relocation of Canteen’s entrance to First Avenue by 210 feet, and by way of a frontage road, amounted to a “taking” under Indiana law.

Richard M. Jackson Sr. d/b/a RMJ Investigations v. Benjamin Parks (NFP)
29A04-1003-SC-193
Civil. Dismisses Jackson’s appeal of the small claims court’s order that he be represented by counsel in his efforts to enforce an assigned judgment. Finds his appeal is not properly before the Court of Appeals.

Term. of Parent-Child Relationship of E.K.H.; K.E.N. and C.J.H., Jr. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-0912-JV-603
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Relationship of A.E. and S.W.; S.E. and A.E. v. IDCS (NFP)
17A03-0911-JV-558
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kurt Retrum, M.D., et al. v. Sarah Tinch (NFP)
48A02-1002-PL-97
Civil. Reverses and remands for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Kurt Retrum, et al. because the statute of limitations had expired.

Donald Carew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms conviction of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor, following a bench trial.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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