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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  2. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  3. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

  4. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

  5. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

ADVERTISEMENT