ILNews

Opinions Dec. 28, 2010

December 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Jane G. Cotton
48S00-0910-DI-497
Discipline. Suspends Cotton for 30 days without automatic reinstatement for engaging in attorney misconduct in an improper ex parte communication with a judge and by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Justice Sullivan dissents, arguing for at least a 90-day suspension.

Indiana Tax Court
Lake County Assessor, North Township Assessor, et al. v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp., and BP Products North America, Inc. (NFP)
49T10-1010-TA-55
Tax. Denies Amoco and BP’s motion to dismiss.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard Childress Jr. v. State of Indiana
45A03-0911-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery and criminal confinement, both Class B felonies. On appeal, appellant-defendant raised the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence the state did not disclose until the second day of trial. Court of Appeals concluded the state’s late disclosure did not impair his right to a fair trial.

Warren L. Williams, et al. v. David Orentlicher, et al., as Trustees of the Indiana State Teachers Association Insurance Trust
49A02-1003-PL-249
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Warren L. Williams and Robert Frankel’s motion to compel arbitration. Williams and Frankel are former employees of the ISTA. They also acted as fiduciaries with the ISTA Insurance Trust, an entity legally separate and distinct from the ISTA. At issue was whether the Trust was bound by the arbitration provisions of Williams’ and Frankel’s employment agreements with the ISTA.

Cynthia Ann Painter v. Lee Andrew Granderson (NFP)
65A04-1003-DR-203
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order that awarded custody of the parties’ minor daughter, R.K., to appellee-respondent father.

Natasha R. Lafave v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1006-CR-271
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of illegal possession of alcoholic beverages for consumption, a Class C misdemeanor.

Carla Tabor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-358
Criminal. Affirms conviction of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or deceit, a Class D felony; reverses and remands conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony.

Richard Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-1057
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief related to an educational credit against the release date.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.P., et al.; K.G. and T.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
23A04-1004-JT-334
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment terminating K.G. and T.G’s parental rights to their children.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT