ILNews

Opinions Jan. 20, 2012

January 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Dept. of Insurance, Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Robin Everhart, Personal Rep. of the Estate of James K. Everhart, Jr.
84S01-1105-CV-282
Civil. Affirms award of statutory maximum of $1 million in excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to Robin Everhart. Does not see any grounds on which to reduce the trial court’s award of $1 million in excess damages, so deciding whether to extend or halt Cahoon’s advance would seem unnecessary at best. The fund was not entitled to a set-off.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jose Castillo-Aguilar v. State of Indiana
20A04-1003-CR-195
Criminal. Reverses denial of Castillo-Aguilar’s motion to suppress his answers on the information sheet he completed at the police station. He was subjected to “interrogation” when he was asked to fill out the information sheet, so he should have been given a Miranda warning.   

Apex 1 Processing, Inc. v. Akeala Edwards, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated
49A05-1103-PL-85
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Apex 1’s motion to compel arbitration of Edwards’ claim. As the designation of the arbitrator was integral to the arbitration provision, the trial court correctly determined that the agreement was impossible to perform and thus void.

K.F. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-JV-290
Juvenile. Affirms finding that K.F. committed acts that would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult based on sufficient evidence. Reverses finding that she committed what would be carrying a handgun without a license if committed by an adult because of insufficient evidence. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence K.F.’s statement made to her mother, but it did err by allowing a police officer to testify as to the mother’s hearsay statements. The admission of that testimony was harmless error. Remands for the juvenile court to correct the dispositional order and CCS entry to accurately reflect the true findings entered by the court.

Louis L. Blacknell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1106-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to felony murder.

Opie W. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1107-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dustin Tumbleson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1107-CR-613
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor battery and remands with instructions.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of R.C. & S.C.; R.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A05-1104-JT-232
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Larry Hellyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1107-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Nicholas A. Meade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1106-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following determination Meade violated his probation.

Mikeia Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Leonard T. Marshall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape, criminal confinement, intimidation, strangulation, residential entry, resisting law enforcement and false informing.

Patricia Mowery and Harold R. Mowery, Jr. v. Arron L. Hofmeister, Individually and as Employee/Agent of Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, and Marathon Petroleum Co., LP (NFP)
49A05-1103-CT-142
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Hofmeister in the Mowerys’ action for damages from a collision.

In Re: The Marriage of Cindy B. Neal and George Neal, Jr.; Cindy B. Neal v. George Neal, Jr. (NFP)
70A01-1104-DR-183
Domestic relation. Affirms award of certain personal property to George Neal, the denial of cleanup costs and attorney fees, and the award of certain bank accounts to Cindy Neal.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no 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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT