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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT