ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2014

February 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Durall v. Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC, and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC
45A03-1304-CT-103
Civil tort. Dismisses grant of partial summary judgment to Mark Weinberger and other defendants. This discretionary interlocutory appeal is untimely.

Tanner Piotrowski v. State of Indiana
46A03-1306-CR-222
Criminal. Affirms denial of Piotrowski’s motion to exclude any evidence or testimony from the state Department of Toxicology. After reviewing the relevant statutes, finds that the Legislature intended I.C. 10-20-2-7 to effectuate a transfer of control of the Department of Toxicology from the Indiana University School of Medicine to the state of Indiana. Although the Legislature transferred rulemaking authority to the state, it did not specifically require the state to promulgate a new set of rules regarding breath testing and gave the state discretion to rely upon the rules previously in existence. The court did not err when it denied Piotrowski’s motion to exclude.

In the Matter of the Adoption of J.L.J. and J.D.J., Minor Children; J.J. and T.H. v. D.E.
53A01-1306-AD-285
Adoption. Affirms order dispensing with father’s consent to the adoption of his children and denying grandmother T.H.’s petitions for guardianship and adoption of her grandchildren in favor of D.E. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that father’s consent was not required based on his knowing failure to provide care and support for the twins despite an ability to do so. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that grandmother was not entitled to notice of the guardianship proceedings. Affirms it is in the best interest of the twins to remain with the guardian.

Segun Rasaki v. State of Indiana
49A05-1307-CR-330
Criminal. Dismisses Rasaki’s appeal following conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and Class B misdemeanor battery. Concludes, sua sponte, that the appeal is untimely.

State of Indiana v. Jeremy Ripperdan (NFP)
31A01-1305-CR-206
Criminal. Reverses suppression of the results of a search of property where Ripperdan had allegedly previously sold methamphetamine. Remands for further proceedings.

Jonathan "Slade" Taylor and Mark A. Casey v. Eric "Rico" Elmore and Fatheadz, Inc. (NFP)
32A05-1305-PL-257
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Elmore and Fatheadz on a complaint alleging fraud and other claims.

In the Matter of: R.C. v. K.P. (NFP)
02A03-1308-PO-375
Protective order. Affirms protective order against R.C.

In Re the Adoption of D.E.C.; B.C. v. P.L. (NFP)
29A05-1307-AD-369
Adoption. Affirms finding that father’s consent to stepfather’s adoption of D.E.C. was not necessary and that the adoption was in the child’s best interest.

In Re the Marriage of: Earika Fussner v. Clint Fussner (NFP)
87A01-1306-DR-261
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of wife’s motion for clarification and husband’s motion to dismiss.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT