Opinions Feb. 5, 2014

February 5, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kendale L. Adams, et al. v City of Indianapolis
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a consolidated appeal, affirms entry of summary judgment for the city on the officers’ disparate-treatment claims because the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that using the test results to make promotions was a pretext for discrimination. Affirms dismissal of new claims brought as barred by res judicata because the same eligibility list generated by the testing process was at issue in the first case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.S., C.S., and I.S.: S.R. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Jefferson v. Teton Corporation, Innovative Roofing Solutions, Inc., Gutapfel Roofing, Inc. and Daniel L. Gutapfel
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Teton Corp. and other appellees. Holds that, under the terms of the American Institute of Architects Contract the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County entered into with Teton, Jefferson County’s claims for damages against the appellees are barred. Judge Brown dissents.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

H.H. v. A.A.
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother’s request to relocate with the child to Hawaii. She has shown a good faith and legitimate reason for proposing the relocation, but the trial court did not err when determining it was not in the child’s best interests.
Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Grants the state’s petition for rehearing, vacates prior opinion and substitutes the prior opinion with this opinion on rehearing. The original decision mistakenly relied on Norris v. State instead of Helton v. State. Helton, like Sweet’s case, involved a petition filed pursuant to Indiana Post Conviction Rule 1(a)(1).

Timothy Ladana Hazelwood v. State of Indiana
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Hazelwood’s petition to rescind the lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. I.C. 9-30-10-14 and 9-30-10-15 are not unconstitutional as applied to him and driving is a privilege not a right. The suspension of his driving privileges is not punitive.

Steven Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Christopher King v. Karen Patrick (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms King’s conversion conviction and the calculation of damages.

Alexander Trueblood v. State of Indiana, County of Marion, City of Indianapolis (NFP)
Ordinance violation. Affirms speeding infraction.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.