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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT