ILNews

Opinions Jan. 25, 2011

January 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of L.C.E.; D.H. v. J.H. and J.D.E.
47A05-1008-AD-474
Adoption. Reverses adoption of L.C.E. by his maternal grandfather J.D.E. The stepfather, D.H., had custody of L.C.E. and his consent is required for the adoption of L.C.E. The trial court erred in granting the grandfather’s petition prior to the expiration of the 30 days provided for objection to be filed and prior to receiving D.H.’s properly filed objection.

Jeffery T. Curry, et al. v. Andrew Whitaker, et al.
49A02-1004-CC-398
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment for Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez on the Currys’ complaint for invasion of privacy by intrusion, invasion of privacy by false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Darlene Baca v. RPM, Inc., c/o Patty Brown
79A02-1006-SC-655
Small claim. Reverses order by Tippecanoe Superior Court 4 that Baca, a disabled and indigent small claims litigant, perform four hours of community service to have her claim set for a hearing. The policy is not a duly promulgated local rule and is unenforceable.

Phyllis Hardy, et al. v. Mary Jo Hardy
51A01-1005-PL-248
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Mary Jo Hardy’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of Phyllis Hardy and other plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their complaint for declaratory judgment/constructive trust over insurance proceeds. A certified copy of the dissolution decree wasn’t received by the appropriate office before the date of Carlos Hardy’s death and the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts the plaintiffs’ state law claims.  

Frank J. Akey, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Wayne Akey v. Parkview Hospital, et al.
02A04-1007-CT-441
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for defendants Parkview Hospital, Dr. McEowen, and Professional Emergency Physicians Inc. in Frank Akey’s complaint for damages following the death of Wayne Akey. The trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Mirro’s expert testimony on causation was an abuse of discretion. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.T.; R.T. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1006-JT-731
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Martel K. Settles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1003-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery.

Shelisa Wimbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

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