ILNews

Opinions August 27, 2013

August 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions, Aug. 27, 2013

Indiana Supreme Court
John W. Schoettmer & Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright & South Central Community Action Program, Inc.
49S04-1210-CT-607
Civil Tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in defendants favor and remands for further proceedings. Rules even though the Schoettmers filed their law suit against South Central well past the Indiana Tort Claims Act’s 180-day deadline, they should be allowed to present proof of estoppel to the trial court. Finds South Central never told John Schoettmer it was covered by the Act and that South Central’s insurer did not make a settlement offer until nearly three months after the ITCA deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Alec Lucas v. State of Indiana
49A02-1301-CR-51
Criminal. Reverses and remands denial of a request to restrict access to arrest records for charges that were dropped as a result of a guilty plea to other charges relating to the same incident. The panel held that I.C. 35-38-5-5.5 is intended to apply to any dismissed charge and not just in cases where all charges have been dismissed.

Consolidated Insurance Company v. National Water Services, LLC.
59A05-1212-PL-632
Civil plenary. On interlocutory appeal, reverses denial of motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Consolidated Insurance Co., and remands with instructions to enter judgment for CIC. Because National Water Services settled with a former employee, it violated the subrogation clause of a CIC employee dishonesty policy under which the employee was covered, thereby releasing the insurer.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.S.(Minor Child), and B.R.(Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
46A04-1302-JT-58
Juvenile. Affirms termination of B.R.’s (mother) parental rights to her minor child, A.S. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied mother’s motion for a continuance.  

Gregory Eve v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1301-CR-31
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for rape, a Class B felony.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT