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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT