Opinions Aug. 20, 2010

August 20, 2010
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kurt Retrum, M.D., et al. v. Sarah Tinch (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor, following a bench trial.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.