ILNews

Opinions Dec. 17, 2012

December 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions and the Indiana Supreme Court and  Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Knight v. Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (NFP)
02A05-1206-PL-290
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Allstate.

Shelly Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1204-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Ellis DeBerry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-606
Criminal rehearing. Declines request for rehearing and reaffirms trial court conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Star Homes, Individually and d/b/a Garden Homes, Inc., David Garden, Donna Rothwell, John Michael Myers, Indiana Telephone Co., et al. v. Equity Trust Co., FBO James E. Henke, IRA (NFP)
49A02-1204-MF-350
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Equity Trust and remands, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate because the evidence was sufficient to create a factual issue regarding tendered payments.

In the Matter of B.A., Child Alleged to be in Need of Services; C.A. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1203-JC-252
Juvenile. Affirms the trial court order finding B.A. to be a child in need of services.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.B.; J.J. and B.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
40A01-1204-JT-155
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court termination of parental rights.












 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT