ILNews

Opinions Feb. 20, 2013

February 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Columbus Regional Hospital v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
12-2007
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
27A04-1205-PC-269
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
49A02-1206-CR-447
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

61A01-1204-PL-159
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

49A04-1207-PO-370
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.

49A02-1207-JC-533
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)
20A05-1209-PC-458
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  

Charles James Popp v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1205-CR-197
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)

82A01-1205-CR-202
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)

93A02-1203-EX-272
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)
93A02-1207-EX-550
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

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

20A03-1208-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to return to lawful detention.

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

49A05-1204-CC-202
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.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT