ILNews

Opinions Feb. 16, 2012

February 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court

Richmond State Hospital and All Other Similarly Situated State Institutions and Agencies v. Paula Brattain, et al.
49S02-1106-CV-327
Civil. Holds that the back pay recovery of the non-merit employees of the state should be limited in the same manner as the Court of Appeals has set forth for that of merit employees of the state. Remands with instructions to recalculate the non-merit employees’ back pay judgment based upon the time period beginning either 10 days before the complaint or 10 days before the filing of their grievances until the day the state eliminated its split-pay system, and summarily affirms the COA in all other respects.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Raymond Dale Berryhill v. Parkview Hospital
02A04-1108-SC-400
Small claim. Affirms ruling that Parkview was immune from liability based on a statute that covers persons who assist in detentions. Disagrees with Berryhill that the immunity statute doesn’t apply because he wasn’t detained for purposes of the statute until after his wife filed the application for detention.

State of Indiana v. Elvis Holtsclaw
49A02-1108-CR-743
Criminal. Dismisses the state’s appeal of the denial of its motion to correct error following the trial court’s order granting Holtsclaw’s motion to suppress evidence. The state doesn’t have the authority to appeal the denial of its motion to correct error in this case. Judge Baker dissents.

Paternity of I.I.Y.; L.M.M. v. J.B.Y. (NFP)
84A01-1105-JP-236
Juvenile. Affirms conclusion that a change of custody was necessary. Reverses trial court’s child support award and remand with instructions that the trial court consider the relevant evidence when arriving at the child support award.

The Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D. and R.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1108-JT-850
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

City of Fort Wayne, Indiana v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1107-MI-384
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment for Huntertown. The trial court properly determined as a matter of law that Fort Wayne’s correspondence did not amount to a termination of an agreement regarding the treatment of sewage collected in Huntertown.

Roger L. Bushhorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1107-CR-315
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to revise Bushhorn’s sentence to an aggregate term of 35 years for charges including Class A felony kidnapping. Affirms in all other respects.

Rosewood Management Company, Inc. v. Twyla Smith (NFP)

45A05-1107-CC-447
Civil collection. Affirms entry of judgment on the evidence in favor of Smith in a dispute as to whether Smith had to pay for damages to her apartment following a fire.

Jason B. Forrest v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A05-1106-CR-324
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Jason J. Kucenski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1106-CR-353
Criminal. Reverses conviction of neglect of a dependent, but affirms 45-year sentence and conviction of dealing in methamphetamine. Remands for the trial court to vacate the neglect conviction and sentence for that charge.

State of Indiana v. Angela Bennett (NFP)
79A02-1110-PL-952
Civil plenary. Reverses order granting Bennett a restricted driver’s license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT