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. 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