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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT