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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT