Opinions Dec. 20, 2010

December 20, 2010
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
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.
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
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
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

A.Q. v. Review Board, et al. (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Corey J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.