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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT