Opinions, Aug. 3, 2011

August 3, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.W. v. Review Board
Agency action. Reverses finding that T.W. was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits as a result of his failure to disclose self-employment. There is no statutory or evidentiary basis for a finding that T.W.’s failure to disclose his relationship with Professional Labor Services would disqualify him from receiving benefits, reduce his benefits, or render him ineligible for benefits or extended benefits. Remands for further proceedings.

Martin Roy Emerson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life. The prosecutor’s questions regarding bullying during voir dire and suggestions during opening and closing arguments that Emerson was a bully did not amount to a fundamental error. Affirms in all other respects. Senior Judge Barteau dissents in part.

Brian D. Hayes v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Westminster Village North in Hayes’ survivor action for negligence caused by medical malpractice and claim for wrongful death. There is a dispute of fact as to whether Dorothy Rodarmel was mentally incompetent and therefore under a legal disability and Indiana’s Journey’s Account Statute applies. Remands for further proceedings.

Dustin L. Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

John G. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

David W. Glasgow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Thaddeus Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Larry D. Nash-Aleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime.

Michael E. Hurst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.S., et al.; A.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?