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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT