ILNews

Opinions Feb. 5, 2014

February 5, 2014
Keywords
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
12-1874
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)
49A04-1307-JT-354
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
72A04-1302-CT-55
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.
03A01-1308-DR-354
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
35A02-1305-PC-451
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
49A04-1305-MI-239
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)
49A02-1307-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Christopher King v. Karen Patrick (NFP)
49A02-1305-PL-461
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)
49A02-1210-OV-868
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT