ILNews

Opinions Dec. 13, 2011

December 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Steven Spangler and Heidi Brown v. Barbara Bechtel, Expectations Women's Health and
Childbearing Center, and St. Vincent Randolph Hospital

49S05-1012-CV-703
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Bechtel and the health and childbearing center. The parents’ separate actions seeking damages for emotional distress from experiencing the stillbirth of their child are not barred by the Indiana Child Wrongful Death Act or the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard M. Clokey v. Penny M. Bosley Clokey
84A01-1009-DR-450
Domestic relation. On rehearing, clarifies the issue of Richard Clokey’s ability to satisfy the maintenance obligation. Even though the trial court did not state so explicitly, the court considered his sources of income and his ability to pay the maintenance. Affirms original opinion in every respect.

Richard and Elizabeth Ryan v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and Elaine E. English d/b/a Agri-Town Agency
56A03-1101-PL-75
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and English. The right of first refusal here was personal and terminated upon the death of Mary Keen as the last surviving grantor of the right. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Ryans’ right arose only if the Keens as the sellers offered the land for sale. Judge Baker concurs with separate opinion.

Robert E. Posey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1103-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Donald Hurm v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1101-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting and remands with instructions to revise Hurm’s sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents in part.

The Huntington National Bank v. George P. Broadbent (NFP)
49A05-1012-CC-759
Civil collection. Reverses denial of Huntington’s motion for summary judgment and remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the bank and conduct a hearing to determine reasonable attorney fees.

Clifton J. Savage v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-196
Criminal. Vacates Class D felony theft conviction and remands to the trial court to enter judgment accordingly. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Nicholas Ryan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-230
Criminal. Reverses five convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, but affirms five other convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement and eight Class B felony robbery convictions. Affirms sentence and remands to the trial court to amend its sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

M. Dale Palmer v. Kay Palmer (NFP)
32A01-1103-DR-108
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s property division in dissolution proceedings.

Edna Kelly v. Johnny Conway, d/b/a Conway Service (NFP)
49A02-1008-PL-1029
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment for Conway in suit alleging breach of contract.

Almaz M. Whyte v. Sam Christie (NFP)
45A05-1010-SC-749
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Christie and against Whyte for $5,250 for the balance due on a verbal loan agreement made between the parties.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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