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

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT