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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT