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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT