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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT