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

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. Welcome to Hendricks County where local and state statutes (especially Indiana Class C misdemeanors) are given a higher consideration than Federal statues and active duty military call-ups.

  2. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  3. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  4. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  5. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

ADVERTISEMENT