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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT