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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT