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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT