ILNews

Opinions Dec. 20, 2010

December 20, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Jasmine S. Watson
71S03-1002-CV-119
Civil. Reverses trial court finding that the Indiana High School Athletic Association’s decision that Watson transferred schools primarily for athletic reasons was arbitrary and capricious and granted her preliminary injunction to prevent the IHSAA from enforcing its decision. Finds the IHSAA’s decision wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. Justices Dickson and Rucker dissent.

Sheehan Construction Company, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, et al.
49S02-1001-CV-32
Civil. Grants rehearing to address Indiana Insurance’s alternative argument that summary judgment should also be affirmed on grounds that Sheehan provided untimely notice of its claims. Affirms the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on this point. Sheehan conceded it didn’t give timely notice of claims. Because prejudice to the insurer was therefore presumed, Indiana Insurance carried its initial burden of demonstrating it had no liability to Sheehan under the policy of insurance. Sheehan has not directed to the Supreme Court evidence it presented to the trial court rebutting the presumption of prejudice. Affirms all other respects of the original opinion.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bruce R. Smith v. Morgan L. Smith
02A03-1005-DR-276
Domestic relation. Reverses division of marital property. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding Morgan more than 100 percent of the marital estate. Remands for a just and reasonable division of the marital estate not exceeding the net value of the estate.

Reginald D. West v. State of Indiana
45A03-1003-PC-213
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief. Affirms that West was afforded effective assistance of trial counsel when his attorney didn’t object to certain statements made by the deputy prosecutor in closing and rebuttal statements and when his attorney didn’t call certain alibi witnesses.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.L., et al.; A.L. & P.L. v. Allen County DCS (NFP)
02A03-1006-JT-319
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

A.Q. v. Review Board, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1004-EX-405
Civil. Affirms decision by the review board not to reinstate A.Q.’s appeal from the determination he is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Markisha Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Corey J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1004-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder, two counts of Class A felony attempted murder, and two counts of Class B felony aggravated battery.

J.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-JV-1050
Juvenile. Affirms true finding that J.P. is a delinquent child who committed Class C felony and Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted three transfers and denied 17 for the week ending Dec. 17.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT