Opinions Feb. 20, 2013

February 20, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Columbus Regional Hospital v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of FEMA on the hospital’s lawsuit seeking $20 more in federal aid following a flood in 2006. Holds the District Court is the proper venue for the hospital’s lawsuit. Rejects the hospital’s claims that it is entitled to the cost of new equipment instead of cost less depreciation and that FEMA should not have deducted from the aid the $25 million it received from insurance.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Fredrick Allen Laux v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Laux, who received a sentence of life without parole for killing his wife, failed to show he received ineffective assistance of his trial or appellate counsel.

Ralph Pipkin v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Dismisses Pipkin’s motion to dismiss the charge of Class D felony failure to register. Finds the appeals court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Riddell National Bank

Civil plenary.  Affirms denial of State Farm’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by Riddell after State Farm denied coverage. Concludes the unambiguous contract and statutory language void the one-year limitation period in the parties’ contract and, pursuant to the policy’s conformity to state law provision, the 10-year statute of limitations provided by Indiana Code 34-11-2-11 applies and Riddell’s claim was timely.

In Re: The Matter of: David Woodward Cook v. Beth Ann Cook

Protective order. Reverses denial of David Cook’s motion to correct error and remands for a hearing on the merits of his motion. Cook challenged an order for protection and requested the deletion of his name and information from the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee website and law enforcement databases.

In the Matter of: Am.K., A Child In Need of Services and A.M. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.

Juvenile. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for additional proceedings. The mother was adequately notified of DCS’s recommended plan of participation and she acquiesced to the trial court’s authority to enter a parental participation order even if DCS failed to file a parental participation petition. But DCS failed to present sufficient evident to overcome the mother’s liberty interest in deciding her own treatment when she objected to the order and presented evidence of her concerns.

Efren Radillo Diaz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  

Charles James Popp v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony, nine counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

Jeannie A. Dickman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

Bradley J. Oskey v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and CL Schust Company, Inc. (NFP)

Agency action. Affirms denial of Oskey’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits.

Kathy J. Ragla v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Wendy's of Fort Wayne, Inc. (NFP)
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Jason A. Mejia v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to return to lawful detention.

Tami and Dennis Lockard v. Lawrence T. Newman (NFP)

Civil collection. Affirms judgment against the Lockards in Lawrence Newman’s suit for unpaid legal fees, but remands for explanation or recalculation of the prejudgment interest component.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.