Opinions Feb. 16, 2012

February 16, 2012
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.
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
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
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

City of Fort Wayne, Indiana v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)

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)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Jason J. Kucenski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Civil plenary. Reverses order granting Bennett a restricted driver’s license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?