ILNews

Opinions Dec. 7, 2011

December 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Melissa K. Patrick: Yvonne Griffith v. Jason Patrick
17A03-1104-ES-190
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of the estate’s motion to dismiss a petition for survivor’s allowance filed by Melissa Patrick’s surviving spouse, Jason. The trial court did not commit clear error in determining that Ind. Code 29-1-2-14 did not divest Patrick of a survivor’s share of the estate with his late wife.

Ivelisse Martinez v. Jung I. Park, M.D., and St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc.
45A05-1012-CT-799
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Dr. Park on Martinez’s claim for medical negligence and to St. Margaret Mercy on Martinez’s claim for negligent credentialing. Martinez failed to come forth with any evidence to rebut Park’s expert opinion that his medical treatment of Martinez met the applicable standard of care, and without an underlying breach of the standard of care by Park proximately causing Martinez’s injuries, the healthcare center can’t be liable for the negligent credentialing of him.

A.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-JV-208
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia if committed by an adult.

Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Kim Rodriguez (NFP)
17A03-1105-DR-218
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Strowmatt’s motion for relief from judgment.

Joseph D. Hillenburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1103-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony manslaughter and Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Paul Hinton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1104-CR-322
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Nathaniel Jeffers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for six counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and one count of Class D felony battery.

Sybron Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1104-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Jesus D. Zuniga v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1103-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

John F. Otto, Jr. v. Scott Douglas Woodhams (NFP)
02A03-1105-SC-200
Small claim. Affirms denial of Otto’s motion to correct error on the judgment on his claim against his tenant, Woodhams.

Keyone Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-PC-274
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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