ILNews

Opinions Jan. 18, 2012

January 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
A.T. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1201-JV-26
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order and remands with instructions to vacate that portion of its order committing A.T. to the Department of Correction until his 18th birthday. Because A.T. does not meet the criteria of Indiana Code 31-37-19-9(b), a determinate commitment under that section may not be imposed.

Rickey D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker
02S03-1201-CT-27
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Whitaker’s personal injury case against Becker following an auto accident. The magistrate judge and trial court judge acted within the range of their discretion in making it clear to counsel that the behavior by Whitaker’s attorney is unacceptable. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Company, et al.
33A01-1103-CT-104
Civil tort. Grants rehearing to clarify the disposition of opinion. While all parties may be parties to the appeal, the reversal of summary judgment only applies to Holiday Hospitality. The other petitioners forfeited the right to appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against them because only Holiday Hospitality appealed the trial court decision.

Corey Fletcher v. State of Indiana
79A02-1009-CR-1096
Criminal. Reverses denial of Fletcher’s motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court improperly denied his motion. Judge Friedlander dissents.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ay.L. and Al.L.; and R.L. and K.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-448
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Adam Hanna v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-667
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by the review board denying Hanna’s unemployment benefits.

Ramezan Hajizadeh v. Jo Hajizadeh a/k/a Jo Owens (NFP)
88A01-1012-DR-678
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s amended order dividing the marital property and denying Ramezan Hajizadeh’s requests for maintenance, enforcement of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864 affidavit of support, and attorney fees.

Steven D. Stocker and Nancy J. Stocker v. Connie L. Schnapf, as Trustee of Trust B Established Under the Thomas M. Crane Primary Trust Agreement Dated November 12, 1992 (NFP)
82A01-1106-MF-244
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms judgment in favor of Schnapf and against the Stockers as to their liability under a promissory note and mortgage.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT