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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT