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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT