Opinions Dec. 10, 2013

December 10, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Didion and Kristi Didion as Parents and Legal Guardians of Brayden Didion v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Co. on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no liability for a dog bite on an insured’s property. The person living at the property was not an insured and Auto-Owners was not given timely notice of the dog bite and injury pursuant to the terms of the policy.

Robert Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Raymond B. Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Dabian Dorion Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Sheryl A. Payne v. Thomas L. Payne (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of wife’s motion to correct error after her request for spousal maintenance was denied.

Jessica L. Rhye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.

Kennith Howard v. Erica Lofton (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Howard’s motion to reconsider and set for hearing, and his motion to correct error and relief from judgment from his dissolution proceeding with Lofton.

Aaron Edward Belcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count each of Class B felony burglary, Class C felony escape, Class D felonies confinement and possession of a narcotic drug, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and possession of marijuana.

Timothy D. Driscoll, Jr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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?